By Dennis L. PearsonCopyright (c) 2009 by Dennis L. PearsonAll Rights Reserved --- No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording or by any information storage\or retrieval system, without permission from the author.

PrefacePAN-AMERICANISM - THE CONCEPT

IntroductionLatin America is in the broadest sense, the western hemisphere south of the United States. In a more restricted sense, Latin America comprises those countries of the Americas that developed from the colonies of Spain, Portugal, and France. The name Latin America was devised because these three countries used languages derived from Latin.

II. ColonizationBeginning with the voyages of Italian-Spanish explorer Christopher Columbus in the late 1400s and early 1500s, Europeans sailing from Spain and Portugal reached, conquered, and colonized large areas of South America and Central\America, and North America as far as the present southern border of the United States. They developed a highly bureaucratic colonial system and imposed their language, culture, and institutions on the native inhabitants. The Roman Catholic church converted the Native Americans to Hispanic Christian culture and acquired large land holdings, and its clergy assumed important positions as governmental, financial, and spiritual leaders. Spanish and Portuguese conquerors and settlers were few in number but superior to the Native Americans in military skills and weaponry. Native Americans also were decimated by diseases brought by the conquerors. The survivors became a servile class that worked the mines and plantations. Thecolonists also imported African slaves. By the end of the colonial period, people of mixed blood formed the majority in many Latin American colonies.

A tiny corps of royal officials governed the colonies in collaboration with the clergy, landholders, andmerchants. These European and American-born ( Creole) families and bureaucrats dominated themajority population and controlled a centralized mercantile system. In the 18th century Portugal andSpain instituted economic and governmental changes to increase production and revenues in thecolonies. These changes contributed to dissatisfaction among the Creoles and the masses. By 1825all of Latin America, except Cuba and Puerto Rico, had renounced allegiance to Spain and Portugaland had achieved independence.

III. Liberal Republics and DictatorshipsPolitical turmoil and economic decline characterized the early years of most of the new nations. Bythe mid-19th century, conservative dictators dominated the region. Liberalism soon triumphed,however, and many countries instituted modernization programs. Power generally remained in thehands of a small national elite. The United States became the principal market for Latin Americanexports. In the 20th century the United States intervened frequently in the internal affairs ofindividual states.

Despite modernization, national economies remained dependent on the export of raw materials.Although a small middle class benefited from industrial growth, progress was limited for the vastmajority of Latin Americans, many of whom moved to cities but did not find jobs. In the early 1960strading associations aimed to improve the region's economy. By 1977, faced with meager results,most of the countries were disregarding the trade agreements. The rapid rise of external debt duringthe 1980s and the rampant inflation that has plagued several countries are key problems facing LatinAmerica in the late 20th century.

Several political changes have also affected Latin America since the 1960s. Military dictatorshipshave generally given way to democratically elected governments, although these governments tendto support their own interests, or those of elite groups. Most investment is still directed to thegrowing urban centers, leaving rural zones underdeveloped. In several countries the desperationstemming from poverty, governmental neglect, corrupt politics, and unrealizable progress hasstimulated regional protest movements. A number of governments have turned to brutal repressionto silence the voices of protest.

PART I --- THE QUEST FOR HEMISPHERIC SOLIDARITY

Dialogue 1 --- by Dennis Pearson

Western Hemisphere Idea

The Western Hemispheric Idea was the affirmation that Europe and America constituted separatedistinct and naturally antagonistic spheres of influence. It was created out of the hemispheric desireto rid itself of European domination. To men who subscribed by this theory" the greatest spectacle innature would be the liberation of the American continent "from the European shackles" and theformation of a "distinct community of American States."

Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the United States, can be associated with the developmentand growth of the Western Hemisphere Idea. Jefferson, of course, was not the originator of the ideabut his written words proved to be the solid base from which the political expressions of JamesMonroe, Simon Bolivar, Domingo F. Sarmiento and James G. Blaine were derived. Nevertheless, wemust give credit to Alexander Von Humbold in his Political Essay on New Spain for awakeningJefferson's interest in the hemispheric system that would develop after the independence of theSpanish colonies was achieved. Humbold spoke of the American continent as not united in the realsense of the word, New Spain according to Humbold was divided into a local "hemispheric sphere"just as Europe was divided from America due to differences in climate, soils, vast distances, andmode of existence.

Thomas Jefferson made a clear and forcible expression of this idea in a letter dated 1811 when hecharacterized the European system as an atrocious and resulting tyranny which sought tosubordinate America to its will through the mandatory compliance of its laws, regulations and wars.Two years later Jefferson refined the idea further when he observed:

"History furnishes no example of a priest ridden people maintaining a free civil government, But inwhatever governments they end, they will be American governments no longer to be involved in thenever ceasing broils of Europe. The Europeans constitute a separate division of the globe; theirlocalities make them part of a distinct system; they have a set of interests of their own in which it isour business never to engage ourselves. America has a hemisphere to itself. It must not besubordinated to those of Europe. The insulated state in which nature has placed the Americancontinent should so far avail it that no spark of war kindled in other quarters of the globe should bewafted across the wide oceans which separate us from them."

Indeed when Jefferson spoke of the inner unity or systems of the American continent he meant thatthe future nations of the new world would be unified by these factors: 1. That they would be separategeographically from Europe; and 2. That these nations whatever form their governments take will beAmerican nations " no longer embroiled in the never ceasing conflicts of Europe."

But it was the fate of the American continent to be embroiled in the never ceasing conflicts ofEurope. Importantly, the tense situation the United States found itself in Central America in the 1980'smust be regarded as another attempt by a divided Europe ( this time by a Marxist element) toreestablish its influence on the American continent to the detriment of Pan-American unity. But whilethis effort is going on we who live on the American continents must not overlook the fact that PopeJohn Paul II is seeking to end the divisions that are now found in Europe. That many of the existingEuropean states are coming together to form a new European political union. Why? That could be avery important development affecting the welfare of all theAmericas.

Discussion 1

Biography of Thomas Jefferson

His early career

Jefferson was born at Shadwell in Albemarle county, Virginia, on April 13, 1743. His father, PeterJefferson and his mother Jane Randolph were members of the most famous Virginia families. Besidesbeing well born, Thomas Jefferson, was well educated. He attended the College of William and Maryand read law (1762-1767) with George Wythe, the greatest law teacher of his generation in Virginia.He was admitted to the bar in 1767 and practiced until 1774, when the courts were closed by theAmerican Revolution.

He had inherited a considerable landed estate from his father, and doubled it by a happy marriage onJan. 1, 1772, to Martha Wayles Skelton. He was elected to the House of Burgesses, when he was 25,he served there from 1769 to 1774, showing himself to be an effective committeeman and skillfuldraftsman, though not an able speaker.

The Revolutionary Era.From the beginning of the struggle with the mother country, Jefferson stood with the more advancedPatriots, grounding his position on a wide knowledge of English history and political philosophy. Hismost notable early contribution to the cause of the Patriots was his powerful pamphlet A SummaryView of the Rights of British America (1774), originally written for presentation to the Virginiaconvention of that year. In this he emphasized natural rights, including that of emigration, and deniedparliamentary authority over the colonies, recognizing no tie with the mother country except the king

Prelude to the presidency

As a member of the Continental Congress (1775-1776), Jefferson was chosen together with JohnAdams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingstone and Roger Sherman in 1776 to draft the Declaration ofIndependence . He wrote the declaration all by himself and was amended by John Adams andBenjamin Franklin .

Jefferson left Congress in the autumn of 1776 and served in the Virginia legislature until his electionas governor in 1779. He was governor from 1779 to 1781.

During this brief private interval (1781-1783) he began to compile his Notes on the State of Virginia,which was first published in 1785. In this document there are some of his thoughts on the question ofslavery. From 1783 to 1784 he was a member of the Continental Congress.

Minister to France.Jefferson's stay in France (1784-1789), where he was first a commissioner to negotiate commercialtreaties and then Benjamin Franklin's successor as minister, was in many ways the richest period ofhis life. He was confirmed in his opinion that France was a natural friend of the United States, andBritain at this stage a natural rival.Toward the end of his mission he reported with scrupulous care the unfolding revolution in France.Eventually he was repelled by the excesses of the French Revolution, and he thoroughlydisapproved of it when it passed into an openly imperialistic phase under Napoleon.

Because of his absence in Europe, Jefferson had no direct part in the framing or ratification of theConstitution of the United States (17 Sept. 1787), and at first the document aroused his fears. Hischief objections were that it did not expressly safeguard the rights of individuals, and that theunlimited eligibility of the president for reelection would make it possible for him to become a king.He became sufficiently satisfied after he learned that a bill of rights would be provided and after bereflected that there would be no danger of monarchy under George Washington .

SECRATARY OF STATE AND VICE-PRESIDENTDuring Jefferson's service at this post as secretary of state from 1790 to 1793, Alexander Hamilton,secretary of the treasury, defeated the movement for commercial discrimination against Britain,which Jefferson favored. Jefferson's policy was not pro-French, but it seemed anti-British. Hamiltonwas distinctly pro-British.By late 1792 or 1793 the opponents of Hamiltonians constituted a fairly definite national party, callingitself Republican. Early in 1793 the Virginians in Congress forced Hamilton to quit his office.

Jefferson retired as Secretary of State at the end of the year 1793. During a respite of three yearsfrom public duties, he began to remodel his house at Monticello and interested himself greatly inagriculture.

He was supported by the Republicans for president in 1796, and running second to John Adams bythree electoral votes, he became vice president.

Presidency

PRESIDENT - FIRST TERMJefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr defeated John Adams in the elections of 1800. Jefferson'sown title to the presidency was not established for some weeks because he was tied with his runningmate under the workings of the original electoral system. The election was thrown into the House ofRepresentatives. The Federalists voted for Burr through many indecisive ballots. Finally, enough ofthem abstained to permit the obvious will of the majority to be carried out. And so Jefferson becamethe 3d president of the United States of America. And what also was important that the transition waseffected by strictly constitutional means. Jefferson emphasized this in his conciliatory inauguraladdress.His first term as president was rather successful. That had various reasons. First, he was theundisputed leader of a party that had acquired cohesion during its years in opposition.

Second, he had loyal and competent lieutenants like the secretary of State, James Madison, and thesecretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin.

And, last but not least, he was very popular because of his policy of economy and his tax reduction.

DISPUTE WITH THE JUDICIARYJefferson restored the party balance in the civil service, but he was relatively unsuccessful in hismoves against the judiciary, which had been reinforced by fresh Federalist appointees at the veryend of the Adams administration.The effort to remove partisan judges by impeachment was a virtual failure, and the Federalistsremained entrenched in the judiciary, though they became less actively partisan.

THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE.The most notable achievement of Jefferson's presidency was the purchase of Louisiana in 1803.Robert R. Livingston and James Monroe were sent to France to negotiate with Napoleon. The treatythey sent home aroused constitutional scruples in Jefferson's mind. It seemed to him that this vastand large acquisition of territory would change the character of the Union. And so it should beauthorized by a constitutional amendment. But he recognized that there was no time for such a slowprocedure otherwise the purchase could be in danger. And so became Louisiana, for 15 milliondollars, a part of the United States.

PRESIDENT - SECOND TERM.Although he was still the undisputed leader of his party, Jefferson encountered greater difficulties,on both the domestic and foreign fronts, in his second term than in his first. One of the domesticproblems was the Burr-Conspiracy. Former vice president Burr stood on trial for treason. But therulings of judge John Marshall made conviction impossible. And Jefferson erred gravely in saying inadvance that Burr's guilt was beyond dispute.One of the largest foreign problems was the Embargo adopted in December 1807. It was regarded byJefferson as the only alternative to war and submission. The act barred all exports to Britain andFrance. But it had less effect abroad than had been expected and caused economic difficulty athome. Toward the end of his administration, he assented to the embargo's repeal, to save the Union,he said. Amore moderate measure was adopted, but it did not avert war with Britain in 1812.

RETIREMENTJefferson was succeeded as president in 1809 by his loyal lieutenant, James Madison. During the last17 years of his live, Jefferson remained in Virginia. As the 'Sage of Monticello' he engaged in a vastand rich correspondence with John Adams and others. Jefferson's last great public service was thefounding of the University of Virginia in 1819. He died at Monticello on July 4, 1826 on the 50thanniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Text prepared by Harrie Scholte Albers for The American Revolution - an .HTML project. ( 10/19/199911:40:05 ) All rights reserved.

Dialogue 2 --- by Dennis L. Pearson

Simon BolivarSouth America: Wars for Independence

For more than a decade, Simon Bolivar dedicated his life to South America's independence fromSpain. After fighting and leading patriot forces in more than 200 battles, he succeeded in liberatingan area five times larger than Europe from colonial rule. Bolivar, envisioned a united SpanishAmerica.

He secured independence for Quito (now Ecuador) in 1822, which then became part of Colombia. In1824 he led the revolutionary forces of Peru in their fight for independence. Victorious, he waselected president of Peru in February 1825, and the following May he organized in southern Peru anew republic, which was named in his honor.

From 1826 to 1830 Bolivar sought unsuccessfully to maintain the political unity of the republic ofColombia. He resigned the presidency of the republic in August 1828, then assumed dictatorialcontrol the next month. Unable to pacify contending factions, he relinquished power on April 27,1830. He died on December 17 of that year, a defeated, disillusioned, and hated man.

Today, Latin American public opinion has changed. Bolivar is regarded as the area's greatest hero.His memory is revered throughout South America, and in Venezuela and Bolivia his birthday is anational holiday. The book of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, The General in his Labyrinth, is devoted toBolivars last months and his travel from Sanata Fe de Bogota up the river to the coast where he died.

Like George Washington, Simón Bolívar (1783-1830) was a member of the slave-owning colonialaristocracy of his country. He came from a rich and powerful family, with investments in agriculture,ranching and sugar mills. Along with many other talented creoles (that is, American-born colonists)throughout the Western hemisphere, he resented the ceilings and limitations that Europeangovernment from overseas placed on advancement by those who were not themselves European.

Profoundly influenced by the ideas of the French Enlightenment, Bolívar was a rare instance of theintellectual who was also a man of action. He was a firm believer in legal equality for all men,regardless of class or color. He was opposed to slavery and freed his own slaves in 1821. He saw thatthe freedom of America from Spanish control required the complete conquest of the royalists, lest abase remain on the continent from which a counterrevolution could be launched.

Without question the greatest figure in the revolutions for independence in Spanish America, both ineloquence and in military leadership, he died in disillusionment with the results of his heroic efforts.Everywhere in America he saw chaos and political instability. Few of his plans for social, economic,and political reform were realized. Only a month before he died he wrote to a friend: "America isungovernable. Those who serve the revolution plow the sea."

Discussion 2

EL LIBERTADOR

Simón José Antonio de la Santísima Trinidad Bolívar was born in Caracas on July 24, 1783, to donJuan Vicente Bolívar y Ponte and doña Maria de la Concepción Palacios y Blanco. An aristocrat bybirth, Simón Bolívar received an excellent education from his tutors, especially Simón Rodríguez.Thanks to his tutors, Bolívar became familiar with the works of the Enlightenment as well as those ofclassical Greece and Rome.

By the age of nine, however, Bolívar lost both his parents and was left in the care of his uncle, donCarlos Palacios. At the age of fifteen, don Carlos Palacios sent him to Spain to continue his education.

Bolívar left for Spain in 1799 with his friend, Esteban Escobar. En route, he stopped in Mexico Citywhere he met with the viceroy of New Spain who was alarmed when the young Bolívar argued withconfidence on behalf of Spanish American independence. Bolívar arrived in Madrid on June of thatsame year and stayed with his uncle, Esteban Palacios.

In Spain, Bolívar met Maria Teresa Rodríguez del Toro y Alaysa whom he married soon afterwards in1802. Shortly after returning to Venezuela, in 1803, Maria Teresa died of yellow fever. Her deathgreatly affected Bolívar and he vowed never to marry again. A vow which he kept for the rest of hislife.

After losing his wife, Bolívar returned to Spain with his tutor and friend, Simón Rodríguez, in 1804.While in Europe he witnessed the proclamation of Napoleon Bonaparte as Emperor of France andlater the coronation of Napoleon as King of Italy in Milan. Bolívar lost respect for Napoleon whom heconsidered to have betrayed the republican ideals. But it was while in Italy that Bolívar made hisfamous vow on top of Mount Aventin of Rome to never rest until America was free.

Bolívar returned to Venezuela in 1807 after a brief visit to the United States. In 1808 Napoleoninstalled his brother, Joseph, as King of Spain. This launched a great popular revolt in Spain knownas the Peninsular War. In America, as in Spain, regional juntas were formed to resist the new king.Unlike the Spanish juntas, however, the American juntas fought against the power of the Spanishking, not only the person of Joseph Bonaparte.

That year, the Caracas junta declared its independence from Spain and Bolívar was sent to Englandalong with Andrés Bello and Luis López Mendez on a diplomatic mission. Bolívar returned toVenezuela on June 3, 1811, and delivered his discourse in favor of independence to the PatrioticSociety. On August 13 patriot forces under the command of Francisco de Miranda won a victory inValencia.

On July 24, 1812, Miranda surrendered after several military setbacks and Bolívar soon had to flee toCartagena. From there, Bolívar wrote his famous Cartagena Manifesto in which he argued that NewGranada should help liberate Venezuela because their cause was the same and Venezuela's freedomwould secure that of New Granada. Bolívar received assistance from New Granada and in 1813 heinvaded Venezuela. He entered Merida on May 23 and was proclaimed "Libertador" by the people. OnJune 8 Bolívar proclaimed the "war to the death" in favor of liberty. Bolívar captured Caracas onAugust 6 and two days later proclaimed the second Venezuelan republic.

After several battles, Bolívar had to flee once more and in 1815 he took refuge in Jamaica from wherehe wrote his Jamaica Letter. That same year, Bolívar traveled to Haiti and petitioned its president,Alexander Sabes Petión, to help the Spanish American cause. In 1817, with Haitian help, Bolívarreturned to the continent to continue fighting.

The Battle of Boyacá of August 7, 1819 resulted in a great victory for Bolívar and the army of therevolution. That year, Bolívar created the Angostura Congress which founded Gran Colombia (afederation of present-day Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, and Ecuador) which named Bolívarpresident. Royalist opposition was eliminated during the following years. After the victory of AntonioJosé de Sucre over the Spanish forces at the Battle of Pichincha on May 23, 1822, all of northernSouth America was liberated. With that great victory, Bolívar prepared to march with his army acrossthe Andes and liberate Peru.

On July 26, 1822, Bolívar met with José de San Martín at Guayaquil to discuss the strategy for theliberation of Peru. No one knows what took place in the secret meeting between the two SouthAmerican heroes, but San Martín returned to Argentina while Bolívar prepared to fight against lastSpanish bastion in South America.

In 1823 Bolívar took command of the invasion of Peru and in September arrived in Lima with Sucre toplan the attack. On August 6, 1824, Bolívar and Sucre jointly defeated the Spanish army in the Battleof Junín. On December 9 Sucre destroyed the last remnant of the Spanish army in the Battle ofAyacucho, eliminating Spain's presence in South America.

On August 6, 1825, Sucre called the Congress of Upper Peru which created the Republic of Bolivia inhonor of Bolívar. The Bolivian Constitution of 1826, while never enacted, was personally written byBolívar. Also in 1826, Bolívar called the Congress of Panama, the first hemispheric conference.

But by 1827, due to personal rivalries among the generals of the revolution, civil wars explodedwhich destroyed the South American unity for which Bolívar had fought. Surrounded by factionalfighting and suffering from tuberculosis, El Libertador Simón Bolívar died on December 17, 1830.

Bolivar swears to liberate his homeland while standing on Mount Aventin in Rome - 1807 - Bolivarreturns to Venezuela.

Apr.19,1810 - A junta replaces Spanish governor of Venezuela. Bolivar goes to London in search ofrecognition and arms. He fails to achieve either objective, but brings Francisco de Miranda back toVenezuela from exile.

July 5,1811 - National congress declares Venezuela's independence. Six months later, Venezuela hasa new constitution, and a new three-man executive with Miranda serving as vice president. Bolivarand Miranda begin to disagree on how the revolution should proceed.Spanish royalists refuse to accept these changes, and begin a 10-year civil war over control of thecountry.

July, 1812 - Miranda is betrayed, with Bolivar's knowledge, to the Spanish. Bolivar flees to Cartagena,where he writes the Manifesto of Cartagena, New Granada (modern Colombia), calling for thedestruction of Spanish forces in Venezuela.

Aug. 6,1813 - Bolivar returns to Caracas at head of a New Granadan army. Eleven months later,Bolivar's army is defeated by a royalist force led by Jose Thomas Boves, who rides at the head of thecavalry composed of native cowboys, known as llaneros. Bolivar flees to Colombia and returns withanother army. Defeated at Santa Mara, Bolivar escapes to Jamaica. 1815 - While in exile, Bolivar writes the Letter from Jamaica, in which he outlines his vision of SouthAmerica. After eliminating the Spanish colonial presence, Bolivar wanted to create constitutionalrepublics, having a hereditary upper house, and elected lower house and a president elected for life,throughout the continent. - Venezuela VEN1979G24.3 December 1816 - Unable to obtain aid from the Great Powers, Bolivar finds support in Haiti, whosepresident, Alexander Sabes Petión, provides needed financing and weapons. -

1817 - Changing his military strategy, Bolivar returns to the Orinoco region of Venezuela, establishinghis base of operations in the river city of Angostura (modern Ciudad Bolivar). He organizes veteransfrom the Napoleonic Wars into his "British Legion", and begins to formalize plans to consolidate hisvarious forces into an army.

Spring, 1819 - Political and military planning begins to coalesce. Venezuela's second nationalcongress convenes in Angostura to create a new independent state. Bolivar speaks before theassembly, and echoes the vision outlined in the Letter from Jamaica. -

Aug. 7, 1819 The Battle of Boyacá takes place between Bolivar's army and an approximately equalSpanish force defending the approaches to Bogota. At the start of the battle, Santander's men are cutoff from the Spanish advance force near a bridge over the Boyacá River, about one-half mile from theSpanish main body. Bolivar sends his right against the Spanish left, while the veteran British Legionlaunches a frontal assault and repulses the Spanish cavalry. The Spanish force is routed, with 100men killed and between 1,600 and 1,800 taken prisoner. -

Aug.10, 1819 - Bolivar enters Bogota, and is hailed as the liberator of Colombia.

December 1819 - The Republic of Colombia is proclaimed. Only Colombia has been freed fromSpanish domination. The departments of Ecuador and Venezuela are still held by royalist forces.Bolivar is elected president.

1820 - Bolivar campaigns against royalists in Venezuela. November 1820 - Bolivar and royalists agree to a six-month armistice. Fighting resumes at VenezuelaScott the conclusion of the armistice.

June 25, 1821 - The Battle of Carabobo opens the way for Bolivar to liberate his homeland. Spanishgeneral Miguel de la Torre divides his command in the face of Bolivar's army. The British Legion andPaez's cavalry crush the Spanish right and center, putting the remainder of Torre's force to route. -

May 24,1822 - The Battle of Pichincha is won by Bolivar's lieutenant, Antonio Jose de Sucre at theconclusion of the campaign to liberate Ecuador. With all of northern South America liberated, onlyPeru remains in Spanish hands

July 26,1822 - Bolivar meets with Jose de San Martin at Guayaquil to discuss strategy for theliberation of Peru). While no record is kept of the meeting's conversations, it is clear from latercorrespondence and personal memoirs that the two leaders have irreconcilable differences ofopinion on the subject. Bolivar assumes command of the operation to liberate Peru, while San Martinretires from public service and goes into exile in France.

September 1823 Bolivar arrives in Lima and begins preparations to assault the Spanish positions inthe mountains to the east.

Aug. 6,1824 - Bolivar and Sucre lead 9,000 men against the Spanish in the Battle of Junín. Only part ofeach force is engaged in an all-cavalry action easily won by Bolivar. Sucre pursues the retreatingSpaniards, while Bolivar returns to Lima to establish a government. Dec. 9, 1824 - Sucre routs a larger Spanish army in the Battle of Ayacucho, ending Spain's presence inSouth America.

April 1825 - Sucre liberates Upper Peru, and establishes a new nation known as Bolivia. Bolivar'spowernow extends from the Caribbean to the Argentine-Bolivian border.

1827 - Bolivar returns to Venezuela from Lima to mediate a dispute between Paez and Santander thatthreatens to erupt into civil war. His efforts are not completely successful, and Venezuela secedesfrom Gran Colombia in late 1829.

Simón Bolívar was a declared republican. Borrowing from the ancient Roman Republic and Anglo-French political thought combined with his own original ideas, Bolívar established his vision forrepublican government which blended the Enlightenment ideals of civil liberties with the Greco-Roman vision of civic virtue and restraints on the popular will. Bolívar rejected monarchic or Imperialgovernment as both unsuited for Spanish America and inconsistent with the principles of liberty andequality. Republics, as opposed to monarchies, "do not desire powers which represent a directlycontrary viewpoint, have no reason for expanding the boundaries of their nation to the detriment oftheir own resources" (Jamaica Letter). American monarchies, Bolívar argued, would fall into the trapof European-style wars over territory, succession, and power.

In discussing civil liberties such as political equality and freedom of religion, Bolívar presented ideassimilar to those of Rousseau and Locke; the Libertador's views on civil responsibilities reflected theinfluences of Plato and Cicero. Education was also touched upon by Simón Bolívar, especially in hisEssay on Public Education, as a tool for governments to reeducate their citizens to theresponsibilities and duties of participation in public life. Bolívar also commented on the weaknessesand limits of liberal democracy when writing to explain the necessity of a strong, republican form ofgovernment. All these ideas, which are discussed later, are distinct and separate from theLibertador's model for republican government presented throughout many of his writings. Thespecific attributes of Bolívar's model state are essential and are discussed in length below, but thebasic principles of Bolivarist republicanism are:

• Order as most important necessity.• Tricameral legislature with varied and broad powers composed of• A hereditary and professional Senate.• A body of Censors composing the state's "moral authority".• A popularly elected legislative assembly.• A life-term executive supported by a strong, active cabinet or ministers.• A judicial system stripped of legislative powers.• A representative electoral system.• Military autonomy.

Simón Bolívar asserted as early as 1812 in his Cartagena Manifesto that the revolutionarygovernment's primary role was to restore order "without regards for laws or constitutions untilhappiness and peace have been destroyed". Historical conditions had deprived Spanish America oftraining and ability for self-rule after the break with Spain; Bolívar recognized that without order andstability the ensuing chaos would destroy what the heroes of the revolution had fought to establish --political sovereignty for the people of Spanish America. Bolívar argued that the new nations ofAmerica needed "the care of paternal governments to heal the sores and wounds of despotism andwar" (Jamaica Letter) and latter added that "[w]ithout responsibility and restraint, the nation becomeschaos" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia).

A strong government would not be despotic, but rather would allow the state "to use force in orderto liberate peoples who are ignorant of the value of their rights" (Cartagena Manifesto). To SimónBolívar, the independence armies had gained freedom from Spain for the Spanish American nations;the struggle for the political liberty of its people was to be the next phase of the revolution. Lackingthe traditions of political activity present in North America and England, the Spanish American peoplerequired that their new states be organized in such a way as to maintain order by checking thepopular forces until they could be trained in the civic virtues. Bolivarism emphasizes the commongood over the individual; unrestrained democratic expressions that harmed the general well-beingof the state and nation must ultimately result in the loss of freedom for the individual. "The mostperfect system of government is that which results in the greatest possible measure of happinessand the maximum social security and political stability ... we must hope that security and stability willperpetuate this happiness" (Angostura Discourse). Strong, central government prevents the anarchythat would destroy true freedom. The state, Bolivarism argues "molds the character of a nation andcan set it upon the path to greatness, prosperity, and power" (Essay on Education).

The core of the Bolivarist state is the Tricameral legislature. In his Message to the Congress ofBolivia, Bolívar argued that a bicameral legislature is inefficient since it means that both houses "arealways found in conflict". The solution Bolívar proposed was the Tricameral legislature ensuring thatat all times at least two of the legislative bodies would be in agreement. The Tricameral legislatureBolívar proposed is composed of a Chamber of Tribunes with the "right to initiate laws pertaining tofinance, peace, and war"; a Senate to "enact the codes of law and the ecclesiastical regulations andsupervise the courts and public worship ... appoint the prefects, district judges, governors,Corregidor's, and all the lesser officials of the department of justice"; and a body of Censors to"exercise a political and moral power ... [as] persecuting attorneys against the government indefense of the Constitution and popular rights ... [and] the power of national judgment, which is todecide whether or not the administration of the executive is satisfactory" (Message to the Congressof Bolivia).

The Chamber of Tribunes Bolívar proposed is to be the main legislative body of the government. It isthis legislative body or chamber that Bolívar most frequently referred to as the "government". Theexecutive and all other parts of the state are often written of as balanced against the government ina variety of ways; the executive and other legislative bodies are organized to act as checks to thisfirst and greatest power of the state. These checks were created by Bolívar to prevent the Tribunesfrom becoming despotic and assuming the role of the executive branch of government. FollowingMontesquieu, Bolívar asserted that the "representative assembly should exercise no active function.It should only make laws and determine whether or not those laws are enforced" (AngosturaDiscourse). In his Message to the Grand Convention of Ocaña, Bolívar insisted that the legislativebranch "should have only limited sovereignty", clearly distinguishing that its role, while central, mustnot be that of complete sovereignty over the state.

The republican Senate Bolívar envisioned would act as a "neutral force" in the state. Borrowing fromthe Roman and British models and Plato's Republic, Bolívar's republican Senate is an hereditary, notan elective, body. Justifying a hereditary legislative body, Bolívar argued that the role of the Senateis to act as a "neutral body to protect the injured and disarm the offender ... [it] would arrest thethunderbolts of the government and would repel any violent popular reaction" (AngosturaDiscourse). Bolívar's Senate is designed to act as a moderative force between the people and thegovernment to prevent either from usurping too much power -- only a hereditary body can assumesuch a position. "To be neutral, this body must not owe its origin to appointment by the governmentor to election by the people, if it is to enjoy a full measure of independence which neither fears norexpects anything from these two sources of authority" (Angostura Discourse).

The Senate is composed of a body of virtuous, patriotic, and intellectual republican citizens through"enlightened education". Future Senators are to be educated in "a colegio designed especially totrain these guardians and future legislators of the nation ... From childhood they should understandthe career for which they have been destined by Providence" (Angostura Discourse). While theSenate does also reflect many of the attributes of the British House of Lords, the pre-condition ofeducation maintains the integrity of the republican Senate; Senators must prove themselves worthyand knowledgeable to hold public office. These "guardians" are not expected to govern, but ratherto act as political philosophers and guide the people and the government through the hazards ofpolitics. Governments seek power and people seek liberty; the Senate is a force in the republic tobalance the needs of both.

Moral authority in the republic rests upon the Censors. Alluded to in several writings, Bolívarelaborated on this third legislative body in his Message to the Congress of Bolivia. The Censors aredesigned to act somewhat like the Supreme Court of the United States although it is not a judicialbody. Bolívar's censors "are the prosecuting attorneys against the government in defense of theConstitution and popular rights" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). It is the Censors who hold thekeys to the Constitution and protect its integrity; they check the other branches of the state to keepthem from abusing their powers unconstitutionally. The Censors also maintain "the power of nationaljudgment, which is to decide whether or not the administration of the executive is satisfactory"(Message to the Congress of Bolivia). Bolívar did not elaborate on this point but it appears that heintended for the Censors to have a power equivalent to impeachment. The Censors "exercise themost fearful yet the most august authority" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). This branch of thelegislature works to maintain and "safeguard morality, the sciences, the arts, education, and thepress" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). While the Tribunes create laws and the Senate holdsthe keys to republican virtue, it is the Censors who protect the people and their civil rights fromgovernment abuses.

Bolívar headed his model republic with a restricted, life-term President who appoints his ownsuccessor "but his office will never be hereditary" (Jamaica Letter). The establishment of a lifePresident or presidente vitalicio prevents the executive power from relying on or abusing popularsupport for policies; he uses his personal authority, much like the British monarch, to act as afigurehead to the republic while his ministers and legislature hold the real power of the executive.This President "is deprived of all patronage. He can appoint neither governors, nor judges, norecclesiastic dignitaries of any kind" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia); the only powers he holdsis to name "the officials of the Ministries of the Treasury, Peace, and War; and he is Commander inChief of the army" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). The government functions without thepersonal direction of the President; the Bolivarist republic, once set into motion, continues on withits own momentum. The personal demands on the President are not great, he is there to act as asymbol or hero for the republic and cannot constitutionally become a tyrant, nor can he hinder therepublic with ineffective leadership. "Should the president be a man of no great talent or virtue ... hewill be able to discharge his duties satisfactorily ... the ministry, managing everything by itself, willcarry the burdens of the state" (Angostura Discourse).

While arguing in his 1819 Angostura Discourse that "[n]othing is more dangerous with respect to thepeople than a weak executive", Bolívar stressed the need for a non-active president when writinghis Message to the Congress of Bolivia in 1826. The apparent conflict can be explained in this way:Bolívar saw the strength of the legislative body in 1819 Colombia and saw it as too powerful as a toolof government in relation to the contemporary constitution; for the proposed Bolivian model, thebranches of government were divided to give each a separate role, not merely a separate power.The legislature creates laws and maintains the constitution -- without executive interference;likewise, the executive branch runs the bureaucracy of the state without legislative interference.

The executive cabinet envisioned by Bolívar is a bureaucratic body empowered to deal with theeveryday running of the state and conducting foreign policy. The President can best be described asan icon for the people who holds no real authority other than his presence but who oversees theworkings of the state. In Bolívar's republican model, the executive functions are conducted by thecabinet ministers and their subordinates. Working under a restricted President, the "ministers, beingresponsible for any transgressions committed, will actually govern" (Angostura Discourse). ThePresident appoints a Vice-President "who will administer the affairs of the state and succeed thePresident in office" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). Under the Vice-President, the cabinetministers run the executive branch managing the finances and diplomatic relations of the state andenforcing the legislation of the Tribunes.

Unlike the United States' model of government, Bolívar's republic does not include a judicial "thirdbranch" of government. Bolívar described the courts as "the arbiters of private affairs" (Message tothe Congress of Bolivia) and did not grant them the power to revoke or challenge legislation. Theonly role of the justices and magistrates is to abide by the laws approved by the Tribunes orlegislative assembly; the Anglo-American power of "judicial review" is reserved for the Censors -- apart of the legislative branch. Bolívar argued that "the judges are responsible for the enforcement oflaws, they do not depart from them" (Angostura Discourse).

While limiting the positions available to direct popular election, Bolívar recognized that there is"nothing more important to a citizen than the right to elect his legislators, governors, judges, andpastors" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). The central republican state -- with the exception ofthe Tribunes -- is not popularly elected, but local government is left to the hands of the citizens. Forthe republic, Bolívar proposed a representative electoral system where "[e]very ten citizens willelect one elector" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). The electors are the citizens that willactually vote in republican elections. An elector is not required to own property, but he must "be ableto write out his ballot, sign his name, and read the laws" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). In theAngostura Discourse, the Libertador also divided citizenship into the classifications of "active" and"passive" citizenship. Only active citizens participate as electors in the republic and act as a "checkon popular license" (Angostura Discourse) to prevent the masses from inadvertently acting againsttheir own interests.

The limits on direct popular participation are consistent with the development of a life-term Presidentand an hereditary Senate in the republican state proposed by Bolívar. Bolívar recognized that thepeople need to participate in government if they are to learn and develop civic virtues. But to ensurethe triumph of justice over free will, Bolívar "confers only powers of control on the majority (Pouvoirmajoritaire) and leaves the business of government to a minority (Pouvoir minoritaire) constituted byauthority based on natural qualities of competence, honor, and will to command" (Belaúnde, VíctorAndrés, Bolivar and the Political Thought of the Spanish American Revolution, Preface).

The last foundation of the Bolivarist republic is an autonomous military. In his 1828 Message to theGrand Convention of Ocaña, Bolívar declared that the army "was the glory of freedom ... itsobedience to the law, to the chief of state, and to its general were worthy of the heroic age ofrepublican virtues" and then regrets that "these generous virtues have somehow been eclipsed bythe new laws designed to regulate and control the army". The armed forces which had fought forSpanish American independence, Bolívar believed, deserve a special place in the republic; it is aninstitution that is to be honored and respected, not regulated by civilian leaders. "[T]he liberators ...are entitled to occupy forever a high rank in the Republic that they have brought into existence"(Angostura Discourse). Writing to General Nariño in 1821, Bolívar supported an autonomous militarywhen he stated that "command of the army and the direction of the Republic must be kept separate"(Letter to Nariño). The military is not instituted as a tool of the government in the republic, but ratheras another patriotic symbol -- much like the President -- of the republic's sovereignty and liberty.

( The above is only one section from a larger work entitled "Bolivarist Ideology" written under thedirection of Dr. Thaddeus Zolty, Central Michigan University. The complete work was submitted forapproval on December, 1995. )

On December 2, 1823, United States President James Monroe presented to joint-session of Congressa policy statement that firmly upheld the two-hemisphere concept as advocated by former AmericanPresident Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, the Monroe Doctrine, as the statement became known inhistory, proved to be a disappointment to Latin American advocates of Pan-Americanism whobelieved that a new world hemispheric security could be best served by making it the jointresponsibility of all American States. But President Monroe refused to give the new AmericanRepublics treaty guarantees to protect their new won independence. Rather, President Monroe onthe recommendation of his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams preferred unilateral action. Thispolicy, in analysis, allowed the United States to have freedom of action when it came to any war orrebellion in Latin America. Thus the United States did not have to resort to war by fulfilling its treatyobligations when a hemispheric state was threatened.

Adams, of course, understood the military position of the United States in the first quarter of thenineteenth century. Therefore, he realized that the United States could not defend Latin America byits own might alone; however, he knew the government of Great Britain would support any unilateralpolicy pronounced by the United States even though the State Department refused a prior offer byPrime Minister Canning that the two countries announce a joint communiqué closing the new worldto future adventures by the European Monarchies.

Unfortunately, such a pledge would nip the feeling that was growing in the United States of "ManifestDestiny" and it's inevitable expansion across the continent and into Canada and Cuba if possible.

Canning, of course, wanted to stop future attempts by Spain supported by Metternich's Holy Allianceto recapture its lost colonies in the new world.

Historically , the net effect of the Napoleonic Wars and interlude in Spain produced sixteen "GreenYoung Nations" by 1830 on the American continent.

But unilaterally, President Monroe announced on December 2, 1823 to a joint-session of Congressthat the United States firmly held to the following principles of foreign policy: 1. That America wouldnot involve herself in Europe's internal affairs.:2. That Europe was to keep her hands off the newworld; and 3. That Europe was to cease further efforts at colonization in the western hemisphere.

World reaction to the Monroe Doctrine was varied. For example Metternich called the doctrine "Indecent." England welcomed it with mixed feelings, for she was tacitly included in the doctrine, inspite of the fact it was not jointly issued. But interestingly, a leading Mexican political philosopherLouis Alaman, became alarmed by the Monroe Doctrine for he feared that the Doctrine would proveto be the first utterance of a "possible threat of North American Imperialism."

But at the time, the major importance of the Monroe Doctrine was that it allowed the new Republics ofLatin America to work out their own destiny. Up to the time of the Monroe Doctrine, Latin America hadbeen a frontier of Europe; now it was part of the independent American continent, free to organizeitself without danger of intervention.

Indeed these "Green Young Nations" or Republics had to rebuild from the destruction anddevastation of their wars of independence which ended December 9, 1824 with the surrender of theentire Spanish army and the Viceroy to Jose Antonio Sucre in the valley of Ayacucho. The fact is, vastareas of Latin America had been devastated in the long period of fighting. The cattle industry wasruined where marauding soldiers had slaughtered the herds for food. Mining had been handicappedby the loss of laborers and damage to installations. Plantations had suffered when freed slaves hadwandered away or had been drafted into the armies. Gachupin owners of property had gone back toSpain. The wars had broken up families, driven people from place to place, siphoned off the leadersamong the young men, disrupted the lives of cities, driven away the trained bureaucrats who carriedon the public work, left taxes uncollected, government obligations unpaid, and government itselfnonexistent. Even Church organization had broken down since most bishops and archbishops hadbeen loyal to Spain, and anticlerical feelings became a factor in subsequent politics. As after any longdestructive civil war, society itself was partially destroyed. The wars for independence opened theway for most of the changes of the nineteenth century.Dialogue 4 by Dennis L. Pearson

Simon Bolivar and the Monroe Doctrine

As a contrast to the unilateral policy favored by the United States, the internationalist movementswas promoted by statesmen and writers of several Spanish-American countries. The foremostspokesman of the idea being Simon Bolivar of Greater Colombia. Bolivar favored multilateralismbased on the recognition of the inherent equality of hemispheric actions and substituting joint actionfor unilateral action in dealing with threats to regional security or crises among nations of the newworld. Bolivar's proposals for compulsory arbitration of disputes arising among the members of theAmerican community reflects this underlying demand.

In 1815 Simon Bolivar vaguely envisioned international cooperation when in his famous JamaicaLetter, written during his exile on that island, he stated:

" How beautiful it would be for us what the Isthmus of Panama could be for us what the Isthmus ofCorinth was for the Greeks! Would to God that someday we may have the good fortune to conversethere an august assembly of representatives of republics, kingdoms, and empires to deliberate uponthe high interests of peace and war with the nations of the other 3/4ths of the globe. This type ofOrganization may come to past in some happier period of our regeneration."

But we ask - Did Bolivar's vision of international cooperation as contained within the Jamaica Letterinclude the United States and the British Colony of Canada at this point? The answer is no if onelistens to the consensus of historians who have studied Bolivar. Thus consensus has it that Bolivar'sproposed Congress was designed to include the participation of South American nations only.Consequently, of historical importance, we therefore conclude that Bolivar was not truly converted tothe hemispheric idea and to the internationalist position until the Monroe Doctrine was declared;and it should be noted that even with this declaration, it required great pressure from Latin Americanwriters such as Bernardo Monteagudo and others to make Bolivar accept the idea to any degree.Therefore, Bolivar, desiring to internationalize the Monroe Doctrine, summoned a Pan-AmericanCongress in 1826 at Panama. The Congress would be an attempt to bring together the unilateralapproach to the protection of Latin America with the internationalist position to form some sort ofhemispheric unity in accordance with the hemispheric idea of Jefferson. But interestingly, Bolivar,himself, would not be able to attend this Conference for he was tied up with activity in Lima.

Please note - the apparent " main achievement" of the Pan-American Congress of 1826 was thecodification of a Treaty of Perpetual Union, League and Confederation. By its terms the parties soughtto create a mutual alliance and Confederation among themselves which would be binding in periodsof war and peace in order to maintain the sovereignty and independence of the region from foreignaggression; and in addition, to secure peace and promote harmony and understanding betweenthemselves, as well as with other nations. To carry out the alliance, the contracting nations boundthemselves to mutual defense against every attack endangering their political existence andpledged themselves to employ all means at their disposal against the enemies of any or all nations ofthe region.

However, the treaty unraveled after the participants ( that is - Mexico, the Central AmericaFederation, Greater Colombia and Peru ) left the Isthmus of Panama. The fact being, of participantnations in attendance, only Greater Colombia, the home nation of Bolivar, actually ratified the treaty.But historically we must stress that despite the influence of Bolivar, Greater Colombia's adoption ofthe work of the Pan-American Congress of 1826 was not given without serious stated reservations.

The fact being, the Congress lost some of its importance with the unexpected absence of delegatesfrom Brazil, Chile and Bolivia. Then too, also expected was a delegation from the United States. Butas it happened the delegation sent by President John Quincy Adams to the Pan-American Congressarrived in Panama much too late for the Congress. Unexpectingly, they were delayed by a death of adelegate en route. In the end the United States refused to adopt partially or in full any agreed toinstrument of the Congress. The net effect being the United States had voluntarily isolated itself frommaking political deals with Latin America for many years thereafter.

Of importance, after the completion of the work of the Pan-American Conference the idea ofhemispheric unity, although not dead, was to indeed enjoy a sound slumber in the United States forover forty years. This fixed reality virtually assuring that there would be a temporary parting of waysbetween Latin America and the United States. As it happened, reconciliation indeed would come butthis would not be attempted until the eras of James G. Blaine, the American Secretary of State andDomingo F. Sarmiento, the Argentinean President and well known writer. In the interim the idea ofManifest Destiny would fascinate the American ethos in the eighteen thirty's, forty's and fifty's.

Discussion 5

James Monroe

I. Introduction

Monroe, James (1758-1831), fifth president of the United States (1817-1825). Monroe was presidentduring the so-called Era of Good Feelings, a period of few political battles. It was a time in which thenation's democratic institutions were taking form and a national identity was growing. PresidentMonroe successfully pursued a policy that served both to protect the United States from Europeaninterference and to foster unhampered growth of the nation and its economy.

II. Early CareerMonroe grew up in Westmoreland County, Virginia. In 1774 he entered the College of William andMary, and in 1775 he left college to fight in the American Revolution. In 1779 he traveled to Virginia,where he became an aide to Virginia governor Thomas Jefferson. He also became Jefferson's pupilin the study of law.

Monroe was elected to Virginia's state legislature in 1782. The next year he was elected to theCongress of the Confederation, where he served for three years. It was during this time that Monroebecame interested in American expansion. In 1784 he journeyed through the Western territories,gathering information that helped to lay the groundwork for territorial government. In 1786 Monroemarried Elizabeth Kortright. That year he also attended the Annapolis Convention, at which thedelegates decided to seek a new constitution for the United States.

Following the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Monroe became a delegate to Virginia's ratificationconvention. Monroe voted against ratification, arguing that the new Constitution created too strong acentral government and that it should contain a Bill of Rights. (Such a bill was eventually written, inthe form of ten Amendments.) When Monroe was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1790, the Senate wasdominated by two factions. The Federalists favored an active federal government and a pro-Britishforeign policy. Monroe aligned himself with the opposing faction, the Anti-Federalists, of whomThomas Jefferson was most prominent. They favored a limited federal government and a pro-Frenchforeign policy.

In 1794 Monroe resigned from the Senate to become minister plenipotentiary to France. Although hewas instructed to calm French fears of American favoritism toward Britain, his openly pro-Frenchsentiments found disfavor with President George Washington, and he was recalled in 1796. When hereturned to the United States, political differences had deepened between his friends and theFederalists. From this time on, Monroe increasingly identified with the Anti-Federalists, soon to becalled the Democratic-Republican Party.

Monroe was part of the diplomatic mission to France that negotiated the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.By adding the entire Louisiana colony of France to the United States, the purchase more thandoubled the size of the nation. In 1805 Monroe went to Britain to negotiate a treaty, but he wasunable to deal with the vital issues of a British blockade of French ports and the impressments ofAmerican sailors into the British Navy. President Thomas Jefferson refused to submit the treaty to theSenate.

Monroe returned to Washington, D.C., shortly before Jefferson signed the Embargo Act of 1807,which was designed to end British harassment of U.S. shipping. Monroe was bitter over the rejectionof his treaty, and his relationship with Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison deteriorated.Monroe then returned to Virginia politics, and the rift with Jefferson was gradually healed. In 1811Madison, now president, invited Monroe to become his secretary of state.

When Monroe became secretary of state, relations with Britain had worsened and war seemedcertain. While Monroe worked to avert conflict, Madison's administration and the Congress of theUnited States seemed determined to have war, influenced partly by the prospect of annexing British-held territory in North America. Monroe served as secretary of state throughout the War of 1812 andsimultaneously as secretary of war for part of it. The war ended without resolution of most of theissues that had started it. At the end of Madison's second term, Monroe was the logical presidentialnominee for the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalist Party had been ruined by its opposition tothe War of 1812, and Monroe was easily elected. Daniel D. Tompkins served as Monroe's vicepresident.

III. President of the United StatesMonroe's first administration faced two major crises, one foreign and one domestic. After a series ofraids by members of the Seminole tribe in Spanish-held Florida in 1817, Monroe sent General AndrewJackson to drive them out. Jackson did so and executed two British subjects for inciting the raids.The incident brought a threat of war with both Britain and Spain. Monroe's secretary of state, JohnQuincy Adams, not only maintained peace but also managed to negotiate Spanish relinquishment ofFlorida to the United States and the extension of the western boundary of the Louisiana Purchase tothe Pacific Coast.

The second major crisis had to do with slavery. When Monroe took office, the states were equallydivided between slave and free states. In 1819 the territories of Maine and Missouri both soughtadmission to the Union. Maine petitioned for entrance as a free state, and Missouri as a slave state.Northerners objected to the admission of a slave state that had been formed out of the LouisianaTerritory, while Southerners would not agree to restrictions on slavery in Missouri. In 1820 Monroesigned the Missouri Compromise, admitting Maine as a free state and authorizing Missouri to beadmitted as a slave state. It also stipulated that all other new states carved from the LouisianaTerritory north of 36°30' north latitude were to be free states.

Monroe supported the return to Africa of blacks illegally seized and brought to the United States. Thecapital of Liberia, where many slaves were resettled, was named Monrovia after him.

Concerned with the fate of Native Americans in the West, Monroe adopted in 1825 the policy of givingthe native peoples land in the Great Plains.

IV. Second Term as PresidentHis popularity at a high point, Monroe was virtually unopposed for reelection in 1820. The majoraccomplishment of his second term was the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine. Responding tothreats of European intervention in the Americas, Monroe declared in 1823 that the United Stateswould oppose any further colonization or intervention by European powers in the westernhemisphere. This policy, which became known as the Monroe Doctrine, was a keystone of U.S.foreign policy for many years.

As the election of 1824 neared, Monroe had no thought of seeking a third term. A struggle broke outwithin his Cabinet when three of its members sought the candidacy. His refusal to take sides is oftenblamed for the collapse of the Democratic-Republican Party into warring factions during thesucceeding administration of John Quincy Adams.

Discussion 6

The Monroe Doctrine (1823)

The Monroe Doctrine was expressed during President Monroe's seventh annual message toCongress, December 2, 1823:

. . . At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperorresiding here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the UnitedStates at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of thetwo nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by HisImperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. TheGovernment of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting thegreat value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitudeto cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interesthas given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judgedproper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States areinvolved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they haveassumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by anyEuropean powers. . .

It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spainand Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to beconducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the results have beenso far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, withwhich we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always beenanxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the mostfriendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In thewars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nordoes it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menacedthat we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemispherewe are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to allenlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially differentin this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in theirrespective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of somuch blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and underwhich we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, tocandor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declarethat we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of thishemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies ofany European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments whohave declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on greatconsideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for thepurpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European powerin any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. Inthe war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of theirrecognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shalloccur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make acorresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.

The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact nostronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on anyprinciple satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. Towhat extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which allindependent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote,and surely none of them more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which wasadopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe,nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of itspowers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivatefriendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting inall instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to thosecontinents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the alliedpowers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangeringour peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves,would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold suchinterposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources ofSpain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that shecan never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties tothemselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course. . .

Discussion 7

Monroe Doctrine

Statement of United States policy on the activities and rights of European powers in the westernhemisphere; it eventually became one of the foundations of U.S. policy in Latin America. PresidentJames Monroe made the statement in 1823. He asserted that European powers could no longercolonize the American continents and should not interfere with the newly independent SpanishAmerican republics. Monroe specifically warned Europeans against attempting to impose monarchyon independent American nations but added that the United States would not interfere in existingEuropean colonies or in Europe itself. Monroe emphasized the existence of distinct American, andspecifically U.S., interests.

As far as the United States was concerned, the Monroe Doctrine meant little until the 1840s, whenPresident John Tyler and his successor James Polk used it to justify the U.S. annexation of Texas andU.S. expansion in California and Oregon. During the 1870s and 1880s the United States began tointerpret the Monroe Doctrine both as prohibiting the transfer of American territory from oneEuropean power to another and as granting the United States exclusive control over any canalconnecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans through Central America.

In 1904 President Theodore Roosevelt claimed, in what became known as the Roosevelt Corollary,that the United States could intervene in any Latin American nation guilty of internal or externalmisconduct. Roosevelt's corollary was used to justify subsequent U.S. intervention in Caribbeanstates. From the 1920s through the 1940s the United States reduced the doctrine's scope by favoringaction in concert with the other American republics. Subsequently, however, fear of Communism inLatin America prompted the United States to return to unilateral actions, without consulting its LatinAmerican allies.

The Monroe Doctrine has had strong support in the United States. It has served other Americannations, too, particularly because it asserts their right to independence. Because the doctrineoriginally made no clear distinction between the interests of the United States and those of itsneighbors, however, the United States has used it to justify intervention in other American nations.

Discussion 8

HENRY CLAY

A United States statesman. His genius for compromise won him the titles of "the Great Pacifier" and"the Great Compromiser" in the era proceeding the Civil War. He was also a master parliamentarianand an eloquent orator. Clay was an unsuccessful candidate for President three times. Later heremarked, "I would rather be right than President!" Clay was secretary of state under President JohnQuincy Adams. Twice he sat in the Kentucky legislature, the second time as its speaker. He served 11years in the U.S. House of Representatives, most of the time as speaker, and 16 years in the U.S.Senate.

In politics, Clay was a spokesman for the border state Kentucky and the middle-of-the-road Whigparty. He sought to reconcile differences between the North and South on slavery. Clay alsorepresented the nationalist outlook of the young, expanding Middle West. In support of the region’sterritorial interests, he boldly urged war with Britain in 1812. Through his "American System" politicalplatform, which called for protective tariffs for eastern manufacturers, federally finance internalimprovements for the West, and a national bank, he sought to link the industrial east with theagrarian west.

Early Career

Clay was born in Hanover County, Virginia. His father, a Baptist minister, died when Henry was barelyfour. Clay had little formal education but was able to study law under one of Virginia’s most famouslawyers, George Wythe. At the age of 20, Clay was admitted to the bar. Soon after he moved toKentucky. He became a successful criminal lawyer, and his reputation grew. In 1803 he was elected tothe Kentucky legislature representing a district near Lexington, where he lived on a plantation calledAshland. He served from 1803 to 1806 and from 1807 to 1809. During 1806-7 and 1810-11, he filled outterms of two deceased Kentuckians in the U.S. Senate.

Clay was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1810 and soon was chosen its speaker. Asthe leader of the aggressive, Midwestern "War Hawks," Clay helped push President Madison into warwith Great Britain in 1812. In 1814, Clay resigned from Congress after Madison chose him to be one ofthe American delegates to the peace conference. During this period Clay developed hostility towardAndrew Jackson, whom he viewed as a dangerous political rival and who he felt had slurred thehonor of Kentucky troops by accusing them of cowardice at the Battle of New Orleans. Clay wasreelected to the House in 1815 and was again chosen speaker.

In 1820 Clay’s talents as a compromiser where first demonstrated when he played a leading role insteering the Missouri Compromise through Congress. This law reduced tension between the Northand the South over slavery.

Political Battles

Clay returned to Kentucky in 1821, remaining there for two years. He was reelected to Congress in1823 and again became speaker. In 1824 he ran for President and finished fourth. No candidatereceived a majority in the Electoral College, however, so the House of Representatives chose fromthe top three. Clay threw his support to John Quincy Adams, the second-highest man, who therebywon over Jackson, the original leader. Clay became Adam’s secretary of state. Since Adamsrepresented eastern financial interests, who views were opposed to those of Clay’s Midwesterners,Clay was accused of having made a traitorous deal. While secretary of state (1825-1829), Clay was astrong advocate of Pan-Americanism, the movement to foster cooperation among nations of theWestern Hemisphere.

Jackson defeated Adams for Presidency in 1828, an in 1832 defeated Clay, who thus lost his secondbid for the high office. In the meantime, Clay had been reelected to the Senate, in 1831.

"The Great Compromiser"

In 1832 the South Carolina legislature voted to nullify a federal high tariff law originally sponsored byClay. The state threatened to secede if President Jackson carried out his threat to enforce the law.Early in 1833 Clay piloted through Congress a compromise tariff act that smoothed over the crisis(Nullification).

Clay resigned from the Senate in 1842, deeply disappointed over the failure of President John Tyler, aWhig, to support his legislative program. In 1844, however, Clay received the Whig nomination forPresident. He was narrowly defeated by Democrat James K. Polk. The campaign issue was theannexation of Texas as a slave state. Clay took an ambiguous stand and thereby lost vital supportfrom both slavery and anti-slavery factions.

Clay was returned to the Senate in 1849. Again he helped head off civil war, this time by proposingthe measure that made up the Compromise of 1850. They included admitting California as a state,organizing territorial governments in lands won from Mexico, and granting the South a stringentfugitive-slave law. Speaking in the Senate, Clay pleaded for national unity. He denied that any statehad the right to secede, and predicted "ferocious and bloody" civil war should it be tried.(Compromise of 1850; Fugitive Slave Laws).

A philosophy which had its birth or genesis in Europe played an important part in reawakening theWestern Hemisphere Idea. Auguste Comte, a Frenchman, developed a vogue called Positivism.Positivism was more than a method: it was a system of affirmations, "a conception of the word andman." Comte believed that humanity required nothing less than the reorganization of society toproduce social change. And as expected, political change would follow in the same manner.

Clearly , Comte's reasoning is very scientific on this matter. In fact, scientific reasoning is anessential point of Positivism. Just the same, Positivism is able to be interpreted in different ways. Itcould appeal to the emotions as well as the intellect. The potential user of the philosophy could pickout what he/she found true or useful and ignore the rest. The philosophy spurred all the Liberalmovementsof the second half of the nineteenth century

According to Leopoldo Zea no other philosophical current since Scholasticism has gained the staturethat positivism has achieved in Latin America. Scholasticism historically representing thephilosophical movement dominant in western civilization from the 9th until the 17th century andcombining religious dogma with the mystical and intuitional traditions of patristic philosophyespecially of St. Augustine and later Aristotelianism.

Scholasticism's conception of the world was imposed on Latin America by its European conquerors;and in the context of shedding off the vestiges of old empire, countermovement's were begunagainst the philosophy so associated with Spanish and Portuguese colonial rule. Clearly many ofthese new movements more often than not were destructive philosophies designed primarily to freeLatin America from intellectual and political restraints imposed upon them by Spain and Portugal. Butnone of these new movements gained the importance of Positivism. Positivism, in fact, as itdeveloped in Latin America proved to be a constructive instrument of intellectual order comparableto Scholasticism. Positivism as it spread from country to country in Latin America contributed to a newfeeling about the United States and thus, fostered the renewal of the Western Hemisphere Idea.

The Enlightenment ( a philosophical movement of the 18th century marked by a rejection oftraditional social, religious , political ideas and an emphasis of rationalism) had been the inspirationalphilosophy, the symbol of a new order, for the first general of political leadership in Latin America.But as the first generation entrenched itself and system into power a general disillusionment set inamong members of the second generation. The system that was dedicated to "enlighteneddespotism" degenerated into a pattern of alternating dictatorship and civil war. The secondgeneration was looking for something better. Thus, Comte's philosophy influenced learned scholarsthroughout Latin America. Just the same, some men as Domingo F. Sarmiento of Argentina andVictoriano Lastarria of Chile developed a Positivism-like philosophy independently of Comte andHerbert Spencer. But in any case, upon the introduction of Comte's Positivism and Spencer's brandof Positivism known as Spencerism into the New World, Lastarria and Sarmiento became converts tothe new system. Interestingly, Spencerianism is the synthetic philosophy of Herbert Spencer that hasas its central idea the mechanistic evolution of the cosmos from relatively simple to relativecomplexity.

In Europe, Positivism called for the establishment of a general system of universal education for all, the establishment of a small circle of persons united by devotion or allegiance to an artistic orintellectual movement or figure and the establishment of political direction by the enlightenment ofpublic opinion through periodical publications. In Latin America, Positivism was taking on a distinctform. Latin American Positivism was significant for its Liberalism except in Mexico where it became atool of Profirio Dias. Secondly, it contained a strong anti-Spanish sentiment which formulated itself asAmericanism. Naturally, the chief benefactor of the rejection of Spanish ideas was the United States.

PART II --- THE QUEST FOR HEMISPHERIC SOLIDARITY

Dialogue 6 by Dennis L. Pearson

Positivism Leads to Rebirth of the Western Hemisphere Idea.

The United States represented a new model of progress that Latin American writers rallied upon.Their aim was to destroy in Latin America the destructive spirit that made anarchy and despotismpossible. Spain to these writers represented the epitome of what was bad in the world, and thus,generated their scorn and discouraging word. Domingo Sarmiento upon arriving in the Spain hecalled "Barbaric" commented. "This Espana that has pleased me so much is finally in theamphitheatre under my hand. I came to Spain with the holy aim of putting it on trial to give foundationto accusation. As an already known prosecutor I must do this before the tribunal of opinion inAmerica." Unlike many of his nationalistic contemporaries in South America, Sarmiento did not seethe problems and destiny of each separate country as distinct and independent. He found thesimilarity of national experience in the Spanish speaking world during the nineteenth century as asign of a common Spanish heritage. In the El Mercurio he remarked that Spain and her coloniesbegan to move toward constitutional government at the same time - the difference being the factthat whereas Spain tried to improve its institutions while the Americans Colonies tried to free itselffrom its foreign yoke. However, these institutions met with little success , and a period of politicalturmoil occurred throughout the Spanish speaking world. Expanding the idea further in his Facundo,Sarmiento said with emotion: " Do not laugh. Oh People of Hispanic America, at seeing so muchdegradation! Remember that you are Spanish, and the Inquisition educated Spain in that matter! Wecarry that disease in our blood!" Thus, Sarmiento developed the theory that the situation could onlybe attributable to the common Spanish heritage. He stated that the Spanish race was condemned toconsume itself in civil war and soil itself with all kinds of crimes; thus, offer a depopulated andexhausted country as easy prey to a new European colonization. Sarmiento bemoaned this fact in ElNacional when he observed: " Any form of government is impossible in South America, consideringthe fact that the Spanish race inhabits the continent." Sarmiento looked for a program to rescue LatinAmerica from this continuing curse. He found the possible solution in the education system of HoraceMann, a North American. Therefore, Sarmiento came to the conclusion that " the dignity and glory" ofLatin America would come only when the education level of its people was raised; thus, Positivism inall countries of Latin America was dedicated to the promotion of education and national bettermentfor all classes of society.

Dialogue 7by Dennis L. Pearson

Latin American Response

More and more, Latin American writers tended during the Positivism decades, though reluctantly andwith reservations, to see in the United States the idea in which their society should follow. In thisregard Domingo F. Sarmiento, an Argentinean, was a particular advocate . Still, Latin America couldnot easily accept the Colossus of the North as a friend. The United States alienation of many LatinAmericans is reflected in the following statement from J.M. Yepes, Colombian jurist and historian ofInter-American Relations:

"The predatory expeditions of the filibuster Walker against Nicaragua; the imperialist war of theUnited States against Mexico in 1847, under the questionable guise of the Monroe Doctrine whichculminated in the dismemberment of the Aztecan republic and the loss of its most flourishingprovinces; and the policy of 'Manifest Destiny' which then made its appearances in some influentialspheres of North American public opinion aroused growing uneasiness in Latin American peoples.Justly alarmed by the dangers to their security the territorial policy implied, the Latin Americanrepublic again turned their thoughts to the warning that Bolivar had given in the last years of his lifewhen he exclaimed: 'Unite America, for anarchy will devour you.' "

In the 1860's a new threat to the America's by European powers began to change Latin Americanviews about the United States. In the United States the first half of the decade marked the years of agreat Civil War. In Latin America it marked the last ditch effort of Europe to intervene in the Americasuntil the Twentieth Century. Between 1861 and 1865 Spain reacquired her former colony of SantoDomingo. In 1865, the Spanish Navy seized the Chinca Islands off the coast of Peru and threatenedthe security of all the west coast countries of South America, whose independence Spain had neveraccepted. In 1862, France, Spain and England blockaded the gulf ports of Mexico, which was followedby the establishment of the Maximilian Empire under French protection from 1863-1867. Involved inits own Civil War the United States could little more than protest these European expeditions in theAmericans. However, as the situation in the United States improved, the United States put morepressure on the Maximillian Empire which collapses in ruin with the pullout of the European powers.

In analysis, the withdrawal of the European powers was due primarily to the resistance of the LatinAmerican governments and people, but the attitude of the American government was an importantcontributory factor. The United States by its moral support of the deposed Juarez government wonmany friends in Latin America. Additionally, many friends were gained in the Latin America for theUnited States when the abolition of slavery deprived critics of one of their favorite criticisms. Thenagain, the cessation of filibustering deprived them of many more. By 1867 Francisco Bilbao, who wasvery critical of the United States, began to write.

" Those Puritans or their descendants, have given the world the most beautiful of constitutions,directing the destinies of the greatest, the richest, the wisest and the freest of nations. That nation istoday in history what Greece was to civilization, the luminary of the world, the world of time, the mostpositive revelation of divinity, in philosophy, in art, and politics. That nation has given us the wordself-government, as the Greeks gave us autonomy; and what is better, they practice what they preach... Their free individual and political life all of its marvels depend upon the rational basis for thissovereignty: freedom of thought. What a contrast with South America with what was Spanish America."

Francisco Cuevos Cancino said:

" ... In their attitude toward the United States and Europe, the Spanish Americans began to reveal agreater sense of understanding ... There is no longer the panic and fear of the forty's, but a mereexact appreciation of their historic significance, and if they continued to look with wary eye on theColossus of the North, they were unmindful of the benefits they have derived from its power."Discussion 9

Comte and Positivism

(Glenn Everett, Associate Professor of English, University of Tennessee at Martin)

The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857) developed a secular religion known aspositivism, which emphasized reason and logic, that he later systematized as the Religion ofHumanity, complete with priests and a calendar of saints.

"Positive": because man now understands the scientific laws which control the world.

Comte also founded the social sciences, and it is important to remember in our more cynical timesthe ideals to which they aspired. Comte and other early social scientists assumed that humanbehavior must obey laws just as strict as Newton's laws of motion, and that if we could discover them,we could eliminate moral evils -- in exactly the same way that medical scientists were thendiscovering how diseases worked and were eliminating much of the physical suffering which hadalways been an inevitable part of the human condition.

Comte left three major works, the Système de politique positive (1823), the notes for his Cours dephilosophie positive (1830-1842), and the complete Système de politique positive (1851-1854). In hisearlier, less systematic works he influenced such figures as J.S. Mill, T.H. Huxley, George HenryLewes, and George Eliot; all gradually fell away as his philosophy became more rigidly systematic.

----------------------------------------------------------POSITIVISM

A doctrine or system of philosophy inculcated by Auguste Comte (1798-1857), French philosophy andmathematician, and characterized by its respect for positives only, excluding all knowledge exceptthat gained by actual experiment and observation of natural phenomena. Comte asserted that allspeculative thinking passes through three stages: the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive("science"). In the first and second, deductions, founded upon either superstition or hypotheticaldata, are worthless. Only in the positive stage can human knowledge be placed on a more surefoundation, he said. Comte was thus convinced that a positive obligation to the welfare of others wasthe only real morality. See Altruism.

SIDEBAR: It's important to read Comte, Kant and all the others, to perceive the issues and judge theirideas for yourself. However, here's our bottom line. The 18th and 19th century "enlightment"philosophers were attempting to break the hammerlock of the Church, and they did so by definingtheir theories of knowledge in such a way as to draw a line between the revelations of faith and thedemonstrable facts of "science." Comte was typical of this effort, and his morality of altruism wastypical of the philosophical consequences -- no divine right or wrong; only Comte's preference forhuman welfare, which he saw as "scientifically" provable.

The Renaissance came to a civilization that had sat in intellectual darkness since the days when thepagan gods had withdrawn before the assaults of the Galileans. Man began to reassemble thefragments of Greek culture (Platonism and Aristotelianism via Thomas Aquinas) and the ancientwisdom of the sages, which began the awakening of the soul of man. Hence, the rebirth of reason --which produced the Reformation, the scientific method, and finally, the Industrial Revolution. What itdid not do was end the influence of Christianity, because guys like Kant and Comte segregatedhuman knowledge into two separate spheres: the scientific and the divine. Kings and popes wereplacated and appeased with an unassailable social role that shared power with the new "scientists."Peasants remained peasants.

ALTRUISM

Devotion to the interests of others, a term coined by Auguste Comte (1798-1857); the opposite ofEgoism. When practiced as a concept of morality, altruism is usually accompanied by a code ofbehavior imposed by church, state, or culture. To serve God's purpose or your neighbor's welfare, orto please someone beyond the grave, the altruist must surrender her self-interest and her mind. Theopposite of the altruist is one who lives for her own sake. See Objectivism.

As women are typically the ones who tend to serve others (children, family, etc), it is important tounderstand the difference between a conscious choice to be of service for something you value, andcoercive obligation dictated by an authority whose interest is said to be more important than yours.This is called slavery.

OBJECTIVISM

1. The tendency to deal with external reality rather than thoughts or emotions.

2. The philosophical doctrine of Ayn Rand O'Connor (1905-1982), Russian-born American writer andphilosopher who emphasized the objective existence of reality, accepted the validity of evidencemanifested by the senses, and restricted the validity of mental processes to those which aredemonstrable in logic; also, her steadfast dedication to individualism and laissez-faire capitalism (seePolitical and Economic Isms).

The basic principle which inspired Rand was a revulsion for Russian mysticism and Bolshevism,which impelled her to research and formulate a rational alternative. Her philosophy, described as abridge between Aristotelianism and the modern world, was articulated in several novels (mostnotably Atlas Shrugged) and nonfiction essays -- which were almost completely ignored byprofessional philosophers, primarily because her system entailed a wholesale rejection of Kantianismand Altruism.

Ayn Rand's writing is a must for every woman, even though she'll make you uncomfortable at first.She's simply stepping on your "altruistic" nerve, because you were taught to put the welfare ofothers before your own self-interest.

"Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." (Ayn Rand)

Discussion 10

Positive Science

The field of Geography stemmed from the evolution of scientific methods dating back to the earlyNineteenth Century. In the years predating the concept geography as an academic arena, there waspositive philosophy. Positive philosophy is a branch of thought sprouting in the late Nineteenth andearly Twentieth Century's. In a movement named positivism, this philosophical movementemphasized that science and scientific method are the only sources of knowledge. Positivismbranched from empiricism, the western philosophy that believes human knowledge is born from thesenses and experience not from imagination, theoretical reasoning, or supernatural beings.

Auguste Comte

Positivism came into the realm of philosophy in the early Nineteenth Century from Auguste Comte.Comte was a French philosopher, who applied scientific method to social problems. His workssuggest that explanations in positive science can only be described through experimentation andexperience. Comte wrote about three theoretical stages that human thought has passed through.

TheologicalIn the theological state, all phenomena is the result of a single action from a supernatural being.

MetaphysicalThe metaphysical state explains phenomena by relating its creation to a veritable entity.

PositivismThe positive state moves beyond a singular explanation of the Universe and instead examines thelaws of the Universe through reasoning and observation, all phenomena is subject to invariablenatural laws.

Comte explained how positive philosophy is beneficial as a new philosophy through fourcharacteristics:

Logical laws are only described rationally, unlike the previous stages.

Positivism will reshape education with a new method of scientific inquiry.

Positivism will aid the progress of respective positive sciences.

Offers a basis for the reorganizing of society that follows the critical conditions that most civilizationsthen existed.

Comte organized the sciences in increasing complexity as such: mathematics, astronomy, physics,chemistry, and biology. But Comte committed himself to making sociology the most complex ofsciences, with the implementation of positive philosophy. Comte grew up with an interest for socialand economic problems. After he left Ecole Polytechnique in France, Comte devoted himself entirelyto improving the study of people and cultures. He incorporated his positive science theory into thestudy of society, to evolve sociology to a scientific state.Effects of Positivism on Geography

Positive science influenced parts of geography through positivism's effects on education. AfterComte's writings, changes began occurring worldwide. With this revolutionary philosophy,Universities began changing the way in which the schools were teaching. During the late Nineteenthand early Twentieth Century, a New Geography grew from research in human science in theUniversities.

Sociology is the science of society and study of human social relations. As geography developed,several braches of geography evolved from the study of human relations, but related more towardman's relationship with land. From the study of man-land relations, geography evolved to alsoencompass the study of spatial analysis and area studies.

----------------------------------------------------------

Works CitedAron, Raymond. Main Currents in Sociological Thought. New York: Basic Books, 1965.Comte, Auguste. "Account of the Aim of this Work; View of the Nature and Importance of the PositivePhilosophy" and "View of the Hierarchy of the Positive Sciences." Chaps. in Auguste Comte andPositivism: The Essential Writings. Edited by Gertrude Lenzer. New York: Harper and Row, 1975, 71-101.

Heath S. DouglasGraduate Student in HistoryMississippi State University

The biggest mistake that a student can make when studying Argentina in the 1800s is to assumethat it was a true union from independence. The country declared itself independent of Spain in1810, but it was decades before there was a true unity in Argentina, and some people willargue that unity is not complete even today. Old Argentina, or the northwest, was not under thepower of emerging Buenos Aires in the early 1800s, and sectionalism was rampant throughout thecountry. The mainly rural northwest resisted all attempts by the porteños of Buenos Aires toexercise power.

By 1826 the people began to realize something had to be done to unify the country. So there was ameeting in Buenos Aires. A new constitution was written and Bernardino Rivadavia was electedpresident.

The provinces took offense to this, so Rivadavia resigned and civil war ensued from 1826-1828.

It was at this time of civil war that the most influential man in19th century Argentine history arose, Juan Manuel de Rosas. In 1829 he was elected to a three yearterm as a federalist, meaning he was an advocate of a government sharing power between thenational and provincial sectors, as opposed to an unitario, who would support the ideaof a strong central government. Rosas was really nothing more than a gaucho (an Argentinecowboy). But he managed to make alliance with the Catholic Church and even was successful inenacting laws to improve education. Yet despite his success, he left after his term ended in 1832to help drive out natives in the south and open up more lands for civilization. These achievementsof course made Rosas a national hero, and all the while his wife was back in Buenos Aires stirringthings up.

This would eventually give Juan Manuel de Rosas the chance to again be the savior of Argentina. Asthe situation worsened in Buenos Aires, it became ever easier for Rosas to ride back in and takepower. He did this in 1835 and was elected to a five year term as president. What he didwas establish a dictatorship. Opponents were exiled or killed, and school children were taught of the"Great Rosas".

Rosas was constantly involved in foreign crises during his tenure. These escapades with countriessuch as Bolivia and Brazil served to take the public's eye off the prevalent domestic problems ofArgentina. Montevideo was blockaded from 1842-1851, and Britain blockaded Buenos Aires from1845-1847 because of disputes with Rosas

But as discontent bubbled in the interior because of increased taxes caused by the blockades,Rosas' hold on power became tenuous. In 1851 Justo José de Urquiza, a larger landowner from theprovince of Entre Riós, cultivated alliances with anti Rosas parties from Uruguay andBrazil and some Argentine exiles and decided to take on Rosas. There was a battle at MonteCaseros, and Rosas was defeated. He was now forced into exile in England. But now who wouldgovern Argentina?

A Federalist constitution was written at Santa Fé and Urquiza was made provisional governor. ButBuenos Aires seceded and declared itself independent and the true Argentina, led by BartolomeMitre. Eventually,Mitre's forces lost to Urquiza in 1859 and Buenos Aires became a part of the Federation. Yet fightingbroke out again in 1861 and Mitre won and was elected to a six year term in 1861.Domingo Sarmiento served as president from 1868-1874. He was very education minded, and hadwritten extensively on the subject while traveling over much of the world. During his administrationthe government invested heavily in education, building new schools and improving the quality ofArgentine teachers.

Julio Roca followed Sarmiento and served from 1880-1886, and he by Juárez Celman (1886-1890). Butthe elections were far from open and honest, which led to the rise of university students in politics atthe turn of the century. Out of this student movement grew the Civic Unionof Youth, which eventually split and the Radical Civic Union emerged. Led by Hipólito Yrigoyen, thisgroup wanted free suffrage and open and honest elections. They allied with dissident military groupsto try and overthrow the government in 1890, 1892, and 1893, and were unsuccessfulin all three attempts. But as the century turned the Radical Civic Union was already a very powerfulelement in Argentine politics.

For Further Reading:

Ferns, H.S. Argentina (1969).

Kirkpatrick, Frederick. A History of the Argentine Republic (1931).

Pendle, George. Argentina (1955).

Rennie, Ysabel F. The Argentine Republic (1945).

Rock, David . Argentina: 1516-1982 (1985).

Rudolph, James D., ed., Argentina: A Country Study (1985).

Scobie, James R. Argentina: A City and a Nation, 2nd ed. (1971).

White, John W. Argentina: The Life Study of a Nation (1942).

April 9, 1996

Discussion 12

Sarmiento, Domingo Faustino

1811–88, Argentine statesman, educator, and author, president of the republic (1868–74). He was bornin San Juan and was largely self-educated. A man of letters, one of the most illustrious individuals of19th-century South America. In the civil war that raged in Argentina in the late 1820s, Sarmientofought on the liberal side, and when Juan Manuel de Rosas established his dictatorship in 1835, hewent into exile in Chile becoming known as a journalist and an educational reformer. There he published his Facundo (1845), an essay that has become a classic of Argentine literature. In 1842 hewas appointed director of a new teacher-training institution in Santiago, and three years later theChilean government sent him to Europe and the U.S. to study educational systems In the aftermath ofthat tour Sarmiento was impressed by the school system and the political organization of the UnitedStates. He helped Urquiza to overthrow Rosas in 1852 and became active in politics. Sarmiento wasArgentine minister to the U.S. from 1864 to 1868, and at the end of his tenure he was electedpresident. On Oct., 1868, he succeeded Bartolomé Mitre as president. His administration was markedby the conclusion of the War of the Triple Alliance against Paraguay, by material progress, expansiontrade, opportunities, improved transportation, and the promotion of immigration Additionally, hisadministration was vigorous and progressive in regard to the organization of schools and the reformof educational methods . . Sarmiento was succeeded by Nicolás Avellaneda. In his post-presidentialyears he returned to his main interest, education. As director of schools in Buenos Aires, hereorganized the school system.

His essays on education and politics, historical studies, and critical works are distinguished by crispstyle. Best known is Facundo, o Civilización i barbarie (1845; tr. Life in the Argentine Republic in theDays of the Tyrants, new ed. 1961), nominally a biography of Juan Facundo Quiroga, but actually an in-depth study of caudillismo, personalism in politics.

Bibliography:

See Sarmiento's Travels in the United States in 1847, tr. by M. A. Rockland (1970); A SarmientoAnthology (tr. and ed. by S. E. Grummon and A. W. Bunkley, 1948); biographies by A. W. Bunkley (1952)and F. G. Crowley (1972).

In the United States the history of Spanish America is generally overlooked. Consequently, the namesof past South American presidents and dictators ( some who are extremely able, and others who wereless than satisfactory) are generally not household words in the United States. These men in theirown nations are noted in history and their merits are debated by historians; however, as I alreadyindicated outside their nations their fame is virtually unknown. But out of the mass of these historicalfigures stands one man whose fame did transcend national boundaries. Domingo Faustino Sarmientobeing the man whose human story could not be enclosed within the borders of Argentina for anentire continent and hemisphere was affected one way or other by his public message. Sarmientowas a thinker, a writer, a diplomat, a journalist , a sociologist, an educator and a politician who did somuch to change the history of Argentina and regenerate the Western Hemisphere Idea.

Sarmiento was the man most responsible in developing a feeling of Americanism in Latin America. Hewas an advocate for better relations between Latin American Republics and the United States whensuch a view during the James Knox Polk years ( March 4, 1844 - March 4, 1849) might have beenconsidered treason in his own country. But because if the events of the turbulent 1860's, Sarmiento'sviews became accepted by the majority of leaders and intellectuals of Latin America by necessity, ifnot out of heart.

Sarmiento was schooled in the Enlightenment, although much later he independently developedviews which made him the inspiration and forerunner of Positivism in the South American continent.His views being said to be developed in both negative and positive forms. Negatively, he sought toeradicate the tradition of the Hispanic man. To him the dictatorship of Manual Rosas reflected whatwas wrong with Spain and Europe. Accordingly , Sarmiento surmised that the Spanish world revertedto the traditional Spanish corruption of the Old Regime which was clerical, feudal, bigoted, andrejected the philosophy of the Age of Reason. In these words Sarmiento bemoaned the dictatorshipof Rosas and Spanish Tradition:

" ... The revolution that the philosophers of the Eighteenth Century worked in America, the exampleof North America and France, and example that the Spaniard there and here once followed, thatrevolution that promised many benefits, was destroyed by a barbarian educated by his barbaricstepmother and who wants to realize in the Argentine Republic what Phillip II realized in Spain.

In article after article, Sarmiento attacked the Spanish heritage. Stated Sarmiento it was this commonSpanish heritage that all the evils and ills of Latin America could be blamed. That is - civil wars andhatred that were "tearing out her entrails," the lack of original culture or learning, the attachment totradition and blindness to progress, the social control by clerical superstition rather than reason, andfinally, the complete lack of original thought.

Positively, Sarmiento, at first, expressed great admiration for the French idea of progress andscience and above all liberty, equality and fraternity. But as it happened Sarmiento soon becamedisenchanted with a system he initially advocated when in 1845 he journeyed to France. ToSarmiento's disappointment, he did not find in France the cradle of civilization as he expected. Whathe found was the following:

1. In France he found the Orleanist monarchies in a state of decline;2. In France he found a society which was rampant in political corruption, in social injustice, in selfaggrandizement, in complacency, and above all promoted the stagnation of the masses.

France to Sarmiento would still be the cultural center of the world. But France no longer would bethe system he wanted his own society to be based on. The French Society was defective, it tooneeded reform. Therefore, Sarmiento left France seeking a new rock to base his society upon.

Sarmiento came to the United States in 1847. He observed:

" The United States is without precedent, a sort of extravaganza that at first sight shocks anddisappoints one's expectations because it runs counter to preconceived ideas. Yet thisinconceivable extravaganza is grand and noble, occasionally sublime, and always follows its genius.That social body is no misshapen being, no monsters of known species, but rather a new creature ,the offspring of a political generation, as strange as the fossil monsters whose bones are still beinguncovered. In order to know how to observe it, it is essential first to educate one judgment tooverlook its apparent organic defects in order to appreciate it in its true character, the risk must berun, however, that, having, overcome one's first surprise, one may become deeply attached to it, findit beautiful, and proclaim a new judgment about human affairs."

Sarmiento thus found a new model to pattern his Latin American society after, it was not absent fromfaults or injustices, but its vigor of life and spirit made Sarmiento succumb to its will. Like Alexis feTocqueville, he was awed by its untapped resources, its territorial extent, and its unique republicaninstitutions. Unlike Tocqueville his faith in democracy and the united States did not wane. In fact, hisenthusiasm increased as years passed.

In a letter to a friend dated November 12, 1847 he expressed the reasons for his developing love ofthe United States.

" God hath at last permitted the concentration in a single nation of enough virgin territory to permitsociety to expand indefinitely without fear of poverty. He has given it iron to supplement humanstrength, coal to turn its machines, forests to provide material for naval construction, populareducation to develop the productive capacity of every one of its citizens, religious freedom tohundreds and thousands of foreigners to its shores, and political liberty which views despotism andits special privilege with abhorrence. It is the republic, in short strong and ascendant like a new starin the firmament. All these factors are interdependent : freedom and abundant land, iron and genius,democracy and the superiority of American ships. Try as you will to disjoin this theory, assert that liberty and popular education have nothing to do with this unexplained prosperity which is leadinginexorably to undisputed supremacy, that fact will still remaining revolution, poverty, ignorance,barbarism, and the degradation of the majority.

Sarmiento's enthusiasm was increased by his experience as Argentine Minister to the United Statesfrom 1865 to 1868. During Sarmiento's term as minister this enthusiasm made him endorse theMonroe Doctrine on the condition that it would be a doctrine of equality and reciprocity amongWestern Hemisphere nations, not an instrument that the United States could use to subvert theterritory of its neighbors.

Dialogue 9 by Dennis L. Pearson

SARMIENTOAND THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE IDEA --- PART 2

Domingo Faustino Sarmiento spent many years pondering what was essential to achieve the goal offostering the betterment of the Latin American Republics. Finally, he concluded that Inter-Americancooperation was essential to achieve this objective. He believed that such cooperation could beuseful if it was generated in a social, industrial or economic basis rather than political. Unfortunately,that is not the way it is normally done. Such agreements to exchange information on economic, social,and industrial basis must be made in the political arena.

Honoring tradition, Sarmiento found himself representing Argentina at the Lima Conference of 1864-65 of Latin American nations. Sarmiento arrived in Lima, Peru with the belief that the United Stateswas most able to bring Latin American advancement in education, industry and science.

The Latin American Congress that met in Lima, Peru in 1864 and 1865 had a multi-purpose objective. Itwas to make an open declaration of the fact that Latin American nations were one family united bycommon principle and interests. It was an attempt to facilitate the movement of mail across nationalboundaries and to settle boundary disputes among nations where they occurred as to prevent futurewar. But as the esteemed representatives assembled at Lima it came apparent that the mostimportant topic that was to be discusses would be the Spanish Naval action off Chinca Island.

Upon assuming a position of leadership at the conference, Sarmiento wrote to a contemporary.

"Without trying to, and only by the force of circumstances, I have acquired in the American Congressthat position you saw me hold at the Santa Fe Convention, giving impulse to the point ofexaggeration, and often serving as a common ground for meeting of opposing ideas, often findingthe right phrases to conciliate divergences."

Sarmiento supported a resolution of the protested Spanish aggression off Peru. Sarmiento evenwent to the point of suggesting a plan wherein the Latin American republics would use military forceto stop Spanish aggression. However, in suggesting this course of action, Sarmiento went beyondthe powers given him by Argentine President Bartolome Mitre. Mitre attacked the actions of hisambassador and eventually pulled the nation from the conference.

The Lima Conference ended by adopting four treaties. The most important was the Treaty of Unionand Defensive Alliance. Unfortunately like previous Latin American Conferences not one of thesetreaties were eventually ratified by the Congresses of the seven participating sovereign states. LatinAmerican intellectuals had no choice but to move on from the debacle by beginning a new search forfresh ideas or ingredients that would bring closer cooperation between Latin American states.Indeed during the time period, Latin Americans were able to accept Thomas Jefferson's two-hemisphere theory, but they were not prepared to accept Simon Bolivar's plan for hemispheric peace.

Upon coming to the United States for the second time, this time as foreign minister, Sarmiento wasable to speak out about the problems which beset his homeland and its neighbors; and thus, heinstilled in the United States the urgency to aid her hemispheric sisters escape from the tradition ofthe Hispanic man. This point of view was evident in a speech made before the Rhode Island HistoricalAssociation. The title of the discourse being North and South America. In this speech he comparedthe civilization of Anglo-Saxon North America with that of Iberic South America finding personally theformer stronger by far. According to Sarmiento the reason for this strength could be attributed to theNorth American process of education, the industry of its peoples, and its economic base. Then hewent on to extol those Americans and Rhode Islanders who aided Latin America in the past. Noting, however, that these efforts were indeed noble but not enough to end Latin American ills. Thus, hecalled upon the United States to again assume the role of leadership, to send school teachers,inventions, new methods, and new products to bring a better world for his people. Sarmientoaffirmed: " This is the only conquest worth of a free people; this is the 'Monroe Doctrine' in practice."What then did Sarmiento advocate? Sarmiento declared that the Latin American nations must NorthAmericanize themselves and draw closer to the United States in a hemispheric association conceivedin the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. This fixed reality according to Sarmiento, if achieved, wasSamiento's vision of the hemispheric idea.

Sarmiento schooled in the Enlightenment was a product of the Positivism era. He understood thephilosophy before it conquered Latin America. In the last decade of Sarmiento's life, Positivism wouldbe at the height of influence. Thus, Sarmiento's views would come to represent in Latin America theopinion of the age. Definitely, at the end of the Sarmiento era and the beginning of the James G.Blaine era, a new spirit was developing toward the United States as the result of renewed Europeanintervention in Latin American affairs and enthusiasm for the United States as generated by thePositivism philosophy. Indeed all over Latin America the spirit of multilateralizing the MonroeDoctrine to form an American system was definitely alive, especially since in the United States theidea of Manifest Destiny appeared to be abandoned by the American government from the LatinAmerican viewpoint.

Discussion 13

James G. Blaine

Blaine, James Gillespie (1830-1893), American legislator, who was the controversial Republicancandidate for the presidency in 1884. Blaine was born in West Brownsville, Pennsylvania. Aftergraduating from Washington College in 1847, he studied law, taught school and edited a newspaperbefore entering the world of politics. His political career began in 1859, when he became chairman ofthe Republican state committee in Maine. A lifelong Republican, he served two terms in the Mainestate legislature (1859-1863), then seven terms in the House of Representatives (1863-1876), the lastfour as speaker of the House. He was intelligent and well-informed, a dynamic speaker, a relentlesscampaigner and a skillful behind-the-scenes negotiator: in short, a consummate politician.

He was the early frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in 1876, but revelations ofinfluence-peddling damaged his reputation. Instead, he ran successfully for the Senate, where heserved from 1877-1881

Blaine received the nomination as Republican presidential candidate in 1884. Citing charges of graftin a railroad deal, disaffected party members, known as Mugwumps, seceded and helped defeat himby a slim margin in the election. Nonetheless, he remained a powerful leader of the nationalRepublican party. He served two tenures as secretary of state in the Garfield (1881-1883) andHarrison (1889-1893) administrations. In that role, he sought to extend U.S. political and economicinfluence in Latin America under the slogan "Pan-Americanism."Four years later President BenjaminHarrison appointed Blaine secretary of state. Blaine directed a foreign policy shift to increaseprotection of expanding U.S. commercial interests, thus initiating U.S. expansionism in the Pacific andLatin America in the following decades. Blaine retired from the Cabinet in 1892.

President-elect Garfield named James G. Blaine, his former rival for the Republican presidentialnomination, to his cabinet as Secretary of State. Blaine took office in March 1881. As Secretary,Blaine continued his long interest in Latin America, "first, to bring about peace and prevent futilewars in North and South America; second, to cultivate such friendly commercial ties with all Americancountries as would lead to a large increase in the export trade of the United States." He soughtexclusive U.S. control over any canal to be built in the Central American isthmus, a goal finallyrealized in the 1901 Hay-Pauncefote treaty with Great Britain. He sought to keep Hawaii as "part ofthe American System," although Hawaii was not annexed until 1898. He tried and failed to resolve the1879-1883 War of the Pacific between Chile, Peru and Bolivia. President Garfield’s assassination inJuly 1881 elevated Chester Arthur to the presidency, and since Arthur belonged to a different wing ofthe Republican party than "the plumed knight," Blaine’s days in the cabinet were numbered. AfterArthur canceled a planned Pan American Congress, Blaine resigned as Secretary of State inDecember 1881. When Benjamin Harrison was elected President in 1888, he invited Blaine to becomeSecretary of State once again. In 1889, a Pan American Congress was finally convened inWashington. Blaine followed up by campaigning tirelessly for arbitration treaties with Latin Americannations and for Congressional authority to negotiate trade agreements on the basis of reciprocity. Blaine’s "spirited foreign policy" also included settlement of a dispute with Germany and GreatBritain over the Samoan Islands, long-running negotiations with Great Britain over the right ofCanadian vessels to hunt seals in the Bering Sea, and resolution of serious disputes with Chile andItaly over the murder of American citizens. Blaine’s major accomplishment in his second tenure asSecretary was the promotion of closer political and commercial relations between the United Statesand the nations of Latin America. But even here these good feelings began to deteriorate with risingjingoism in the United States, which stirred latent Latin American suspicions of the "Colossus of theNorth." Whether because of worsening relations with President Harrison, deteriorating health, orambition to again secure the Republican nomination for the presidency, Blaine resigned in June1892. James G. Blaine, "the man from Maine," died in January 1893 at age 63.

Dialogue 10 by Dennis L. Pearson

BLAINE'S QUEST FOR HEMISPHERIC IDEA

In a hemisphere wherein the idea of multi-national participation in some form of peace keepingorganization was conducive, the United States, the Colossus of the North, regained the leadership ofthe Pan-American Unity movement in the 1880's. Please note --- the Norte American most responsiblefor this reversal of Estados Unidos or Gringo policy was James G. Blaine. Blaine , thwarted by politicalenemies from consideration as a presidential candidate in 1889, agreed to become Secretary of Statein the Republican Administration of James Abram Garfield.

The imperious "Plumed Knight" from Maine, whose profession aside from politics was that ofjournalism, entered diplomatic service wholly without diplomatic experience. As stated by Thomas A.Bailey in "A Diplomatic History of the American People, Blaine's long years of service in Congress haddeveloped for him an oratorical brilliance and unbending partisanship rather than appreciation of anadversary's point of view - a prime essential in diplomacy.

The Garfield Administration took office March 4, 1881. But last only a short time as James A. Garfielddied September 19, 1881, the second American President to die prematurely from an assassins bullet.Of historical interest, Blaine within the short-lived Garfield Administration had much influencegenerally, but in the formulation of foreign policy with Garfield's backing he ruled supreme. However,Blaine's supreme influence did not survive Garfield's death and the ascension of Chester Alan Arthurto the presidency for he resigned as Secretary of State December 19, 1881.

In regards to Latin America, the Secretary of State developed a policy based upon economic orpragmatic influences rather than idealistic motives. As a politician who happened to factor bigbusiness, Blaine was concerned that his country's balance of trade with Latin America was in the redfor $100 million annually. Please note - the period's trade trend was for Latin American nations to shiphuge quantities of raw material to the United States, but buy the bulk of their manufactured goodsfrom Europe. Therefore, Blaine's aim was to beat foreign competitors by forming closer commercialties with hemispheric states. But commercial ties could not flourish amid constant warfare andturmoil.

Thus, in his own words, Blaine would observe:" Peace, is essential to commerce, is the very life ofhonest trade, is the solid basis of international prosperity."

Consequently Blaine wrote that the foreign policy of the Garfield Administration had two objectives inregards to Latin America:\

" First to bring about peace and prevent future wars in North and South America, second to cultivatesuch friendly relations with all American countries as would lead to a large increase in the exporttrade of the United States by supplying those fabrics in which we are abundantly able to compete withthe manufacturing nations of Europe."

Thus, the essential point of Blaine's Pan Americanism was the maintenance of peace. But the fixedreality was plainly evident that Latin America was again in the time of troubles. The terrible War of thePacific, pitting Chile against Peru and Bolivia, continued on the west coast of South America as it hadsince 1879; and territorial differences between Chile and Argentina brought in another belligerent.Then too, Mexico and Guatemala were at odds in a diplomatic controversy threatening to involve thetwo nations in a separate war of their own. At the same time, Costa Rica and Colombia searched for amethod to agree on their boundary.

Dialogue 11 by Dennis L. Pearson

BLAINE'S QUEST FOR HEMISPHERIC IDEA -- PART II

Latin America was a powder keg that indeed needed attention. Therefore, Blaine and PresidentGarfield decided that it should be the policy of the United States " to induce the Spanish States toadopt some peaceful mode of adjusting their frequently reoccurring contentions." Such an attemptwas regarded as "the most honorable and useful ends to which the diplomacy of the United Statescould contribute." The United States role in the system was that of a friendly counselor whosefunction was to mediate, advise but not forcefully intervene. The idea was similar to the onesuggested by Argentinean Domingo F. Sarmiento that hemispheric nations would be respected withequality and reciprocity, that arbitration would replace the settlement of disputes by force, that theMonroe Doctrine was extended to mean a positive aid to the development of that part of the worldwhich it affected.

Following the new foreign dictum, United States diplomats engaged in the business of acting as amediator between disputes in Latin American nations. But it became apparent that the United Stateswas not achieving what it desired.

In the Chiapas border dispute between Guatemala and Mexico, the United States " acting as thenatural protector of Central American integrity" was pleased to use its good offices to bring about apeaceable settlement of the crisis. Blaine feared that in a war so unequal, Mexico would extend herborders by conquest. Thus, Blaine feared "another lamentable demonstration of the so-called right ofconquest.," which would postpone indefinitely " that sympathy of feeling, that community of purpose,and that development of which depends the future prosperity of the country. " Blaine accordinglyurged the conflict to be averted by diplomatic means, or these failing, by resort to arbitration.However, the Mexican government did not receive the suggestion with favor. They accused theUnited States with siding with Guatemala; and thus, Blaine in his last dispatch on the subjectexpressed deep regrets that Mexico was unwilling to join the United States in establishing theprinciple of arbitration to end foreign discord. Blaine hoped to see in a distant day "such concordand cooperation between all nations of America as will render war impossible."

Simultaneously with his endeavor to effect a settlement between Mexico and Guatemala, Blaine wasshriving zealously to restore peace among belligerents of the War of Pacific. In this effort Blaine alsofailed for his ambassadors Stephen A Hurlburt and Hugh Judson Kilpatrick became partisans of thenations they served in and their replacement William H. Trescott could not effect peace. Therefore,the war which then was in its second year was destined to last three more years.

Only in the dispute between Argentina and Chile over Patagonia did American mediation ofhemispheric disputes achieve its desired ends; and in this case, both nations deemed settlementnecessary because of extenuating circumstances.

Consequently, it became apparent to Blaine that a new comprehensive plan must be formulated tobring peace to the hemisphere. Thus, in pursuance of his policy of promoting peace and commerce inAmerica, he urged the calling of an International American Conference at Washington to considermethods of preventing war. The basic idea, of course, dated back to Henry Clay, and since then hadreceived considerable support in Latin America itself. Blaine cited these reasons for such action:

" The Spanish American States are in a special need of help which the Peace Congress would affordthem. They require external pressure to keep them from war. When at war external pressure to bringthem peace... If our government does not resume its efforts to assure peace in South America someEuropean government will be forced to perform the friendly office. The U.S. cannot play betweennations the part of the dog in the manger. We must perform the duty of human interventionourselves, or give away to foreign governments that are willing to accept the responsibility of thegreat trust, and secure the enhance influence and numberless advantages resulting from such aphilanthropic and beneficent course... At present the trade with Spanish America was so strongly inchannels adverse to the U.S that besides our inability to furnish manufactured articles, we do not getthe profit on our raw materials that are shipped there. Our petroleum reaches most of the Spanishspeaking ports after twice crossing the Atlantic paying after a better profit to the European middlemen who handle it than it does to the producer of the oil in the Northwest Counties of Pennsylvania."

But President Garfield was shot on July 2, 1881 and remained in intensive care until death claimedthe President September 19, 1881. As a result, plans for the Conference were postponed until thenew President, Chester Arthur, could give his assent to the calling of the Peace Conference. Blainesecured lukewarm assent from Arthur and promptly issued invitations to the Latin American Republicon November 29, 1881 through his ambassadors. Unfortunately, three weeks later, the Secretary ofState resigned from Arthur's cabinet as a result of a disagreement.

Blaine's successor, Frederick Frelingshuysen, immediately canceled the Inter-American Conferenceon the grounds that the War of the Pacific had not terminated as expected. Of interest, nine nationshad already accepted the invitation. However, on the whole, the idea of a hemispheric assemblyunder the auspices of the United States evoked little enthusiasm at that moment in Latin America. Insome cases the reaction was one of apathy. Yet in a few isolated cases the invitation was viewed asan attempt of the United States to extend its influence over Latin America. An extreme illustration ofthis suspicion was voiced among Chileans who were still embattled in War with Peru and Bolivia andresented what they considered was an open American intervention on behalf of their enemies.

Dialogue 12 by Dennis L. Pearson

BLAINE'S QUEST FOR HEMISPHERIC IDEA -- PART III

Historically, James G. Blaine, between leaving the post of Secretary of State in 1881 and his return tothe post in 1889, was mainly preoccupied with other matters than Pan-Americanism. Please note - onesuch diversion was his unsuccessful campaign for president in 1884. Just the same Blaine's goal ofenhanced relations between the United States and Latin America was not entirely forgotten in theinterim between Blaine's two terms. The fixed reality being that in every session of Congress, theintroduction of bills dealing with some phase of the subject made it clear that members of Congresswere not satisfied with conditions affecting relations with its sister republics to the south.Consequently, commerce and trade with Mexico, Central America and South America were the primeissues dealt with in all proposed legislation. It plainly evident that Congress, rather than theRepublican administration of Chester Alan Arthur ( September 20, 1881 to March 4, 1885) or theDemocratic Administration of Grover Cleveland ( March 4, 1885 - March 4 1889), undertook theinitiative in developing the United States position in regard to hemispheric issues such as trade,development and peaceful resolution of regional disputes.

Historically, the Democratic Administration of Grover Cleveland having the distinction of being thefirst Democratic Administration since the outbreak of the American Civil War.

Leading the fight were Congressmen William McKinley of Ohio, John T. Morgan of Alabama, andpublicists Hinton Rowan Helper, the author of Impending Crisis and William Elroy Curtis, the author ofThe Capitals of South America.

Curtis and Helper encouraged the movement toward hemispheric cooperation by applauding it intheir writings and in appearance before Congressional committees. The Congressmen pushed themovement by introducing bills at intervals on such subjects as the establishment of an AmericanCustoms Union, an arbitration conference, and the feasibility of constructing a Pan AmericanRailroad, an idea that particularly appealed to Helper.

The fate of these bills introduced by McKinley and Morgan often ran the following cycle; that is, theywere introduced at intervals, reported on with hostility, killed in committee, only in the future to bebrought to life again and re-introduced.

For McKinley and Morgan, a breakthrough would occur in 1884. A bill to create a committee toinvestigate conditions in South America actually received Congressional approval. The bill created acommission to consist of three people who then at the governments expense be sent on a factfinding mission to South America. Upon their return from this political junket , they were obligated togive a report to Congress and the nation in regard to their findings.

Four years later, a bill designed to "promote the establishment of an American Customs Union or"Zollverin" was introduced January 4, 1888.

Of great significance, this bill in its normal course through the slow working democratic process ofCongress was severely modified and toned down in scale without divesting it of its historical intentwhen it achieved passage May 10, 1888. The bill, with amendments added, provided for the calling ofa conference to consider various economic and commercial problems and to formulate some schemeof arbitration.

Most interestingly, the act became law without the signature of then President Grover Cleveland.

Of interest too, James G. Blaine who eventually would preside over this conference upon his returnto the office of Secretary of State can claim no responsibility for its calling. Historically, this creditmust go to the foursome of McKinley, the future President, Morgan, Helper and Curtis.

Dialogue 13 by Dennis L. Pearson

BLAINE'S QUEST FOR HEMISPHERIC IDEA -- PART IV

President Cleveland's Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard, under Congressional mandate, invitedthe nations of the new world to send delegates to Washington D.C. for the purposes of discussingproblems of common interest: questions of peace, trade and communication. The historic realitybeing that in October, 1889, representatives of Latin American states assembled in Washington to begreeted by the Secretary of State of a new American Administration.

It transposing that the Republican Administration of Benjamin Harrison ( March 4, 1889 to March 4,1893) had replaced the Democratic Administration of Grover Cleveland. Thus it happened that JamesG. Blaine "The Plumed Knight" from Maine was back in his old job as Secretary of State.

Immediately, Secretary of State Blaine invited the delegates to the Washington Peace Conference totour the industrial centers of the United States as the gusts of the nation. The object of the trip wasto impress upon the delegates the size and wealth of the nation, presumably as a step towardweaning them away from their European commercial connection and to dispel Latin American fears ofthe Colossus of the North.

Reassembling on November 18, 1889, the Conference settled down to do some work with thequestions considered by the delegates the same as provided in the historic act of Congress, that is:

1. Measures designed to preserve and promote the prosperity of the American States;2. Measures designed to create an American Customs Union;3. Measures designed to benefit inter-American transportation and communications;4. Measures designed to create uniform customs and port regulations;5. Measures designed to promote uniform weights and measures and uniform laws of copyrights andpatents and extradition of criminals;6. Measures designed to promote the adoption of a common silver coin;7. Measures designed to establish a plan for arbitration of all disputes;8. Measures designed to address any other subject relating to the welfare of the several states thatmight be represented.

Blaine vigorously tried to make the delegates accept all eight proposals. But fate would have it thathe would be unsuccessful in this goal. Simply put, there were too many petty hemispheric jealousieswhich had to be resolved before universal accord could be reached on all matters. The Conferenceclosed on April 19, 1890. Importantly, the groundwork for future hemispheric cooperation was laid.

Unfortunately, in regard to the main issue, the Congressional Customs Union Project Proposal, theConference was a complete disillusioning failure. Why? As the meeting came to an end, the projectwas killed by its opponents.

For example, Argentine delegate Roque Saenz Pena made the point for universalism againstregionalism in economic policy when he observed:

Alluding to the motto of Custom Union Advocates," America for the Americas," he offered in its place,"America for all mankind."

Yet in other areas, however, the Conference was more successful in comparison with otherattempted Inter-American Peace Conferences. Why? First, the Washington Conference was far betterattended than any previous Conferences in Latin America. Eighteen American states had attendedthe Conference. Secondly, the Washington Conference actually enacted measures which lived farafter its demise. For example, an arbitration convention was adopted, which paved the way for theelaborate Organization of American States peace organization of today.

Importantly - the arbitration convention as adopted by the Conference granted the United States nomore power and no more important a position than the least of the Latin American States.

Then too, the First Washington Inter-American Conference had a clear-cut accomplishment in thecreation of the Commercial Bureau of the American Republics also known as the Pan-American Union.

Please note - it being the main function of the Pan-American Union to collect and distributecommercial and general information among the republics in the hopes of not only fostering theexchange of inter-American trade, but also, to remove the great ignorance among the respectivepeoples.

The fixed historic reality of note being that before the Pan-American Union got under way twenty LatinAmerican States in addition to the United States would become Charter members. However, onenotable member of the American Community of nations was absent - The Dominion of Canadachoosing not to be a member. Its preference was to maintain close ties with the United Kingdom andits Commonwealth of nations. Not until Canada entered into a Free Trade Treaties with the UnitedState and Mexico in the late 1980"s and early 1990's would it assent to joining the Organization ofAmerican States.

As it happened, William E. Curtis, known earlier for his support of the hemispheric idea, would beappointed August 26, 1890 the first director of the new organization and would serve to May 19, 1893.Curtis's charge was to organize the administrative body which would operate the Union and alsopublish the initial Inter-American Bulletin of the Pan-American Union.

Discussion 15

" ON THE PAN-AMERICAN CONGRESS"By Jose Marti

(Essay appearing in La Nacion of Buenos Aires on December 19 and 20, 1889)

"Pan-Americans," says one newspaper; "Clay's dream," says another; a third, "The right influence"; afourth, "Not yet"; a fifth, "Steamers to South America"; a sixth, "Manifest destiny"; a seventh, "TheGulf is ours." And still others: "That Congress!" "The subsidy hungers," "Actions against thecandidates," "Blaine's Congress," "The bread parade," "Blaine's myth."

The parade of delegates is ending and the sessions of the Pan-American Congress are about tobegin. Never in America, from its independence to the present, has there been a matter requiringmore good judgment or more vigilance, or demanding a clearer and more thorough examination, thanthe invitation which the powerful United States (glutted with unsalable merchandise and determinedto extend its dominions in America) is sending to the less powerful American nations (bound by freeand useful commerce to the European nations) for purposes of arranging an alliance against Europeand cutting off transactions with the rest of the world. Spanish America learned how to save itselffrom the tyranny of Spain; and now, after viewing with judicial eyes the antecedents, motives, andingredients of the invitation, it is essential to say, for it is true, that the time has come for SpanishAmerica to declare its second independence. . .

Dangers must not be recognized only when they are upon us, but when they can be avoided. Inpolitics the main thing is to clarify and foresee. Only a virile and unanimous response, for which thereis still time without risk, can free all the Spanish American nations at one time from the anxiety andagitation - fatal in a country's hour of development - in which the secular and admittedly predominantpolicy of a powerful and ambitious neighbor, with the possible connivance of the weak or venalrepublics, would forever hold them. This powerful neighbor has never desired to incite them, nor hasit exerted control over them except to prevent their expansion, as in Panama; or to take possessionof their territory, as in Mexico, Nicaragua, Santo Domingo, Haiti, and Cuba; or to cut off their tradewith the rest of the world, as in Colombia; or to oblige them to buy what it cannot sell, as it is nowdoing, and to form a confederacy for purposes of controlling them. . .

. . . It is generally agreed that the (Pan-American) Congress will be nothing but a worthless meeting,or a presidential campaign banner, or a pretext for a subsidy hunt. Those who know the benefits ofindependence, and who cannot conceive of dispensing with it unless absolutely necessary, areexpecting all this from the independent nations of America. Will the Gulf islands be admitted to thepresence of the new master on their knees? Will Central America consent to divide in half, the Canalblade slicing through its heart, or to unite on behalf of the South as Mexico's oppressor? Mexico is anation with the same interests, the same destiny, and the same racial background as Central America.Will Colombia pawn or sell its sovereignty? Will the free nations sweep the isthmus clear of obstaclesto the juggernaut - those free nations that dwell there and will climb into its car as did the Mexicansin Texas? Through hopes of support against the European alien, because of an illusion of progressthat is excusable only in a provincial mentality, will Venezuela, being nearer and more ambitious,stand up for the dominance of an even more dreadful foreigner who announces that its eyes mustbe, and are, fixed upon the entire American family of nations? Or must admiration for the UnitedStates go so far as to lend a hand to the exhausted young bull, like the peasant woman in La Terre?

This blind admiration, because of the novice's enthusiasm or lack of study is the main force inAmerica upon which the policy of control depends in this matter. It is a policy invoking a dogma thatneeds no foreign supplication in the American republics, for centuries ago, even before entering theinnocence of childhood, these republics learned how to bravely repulse the most stubborn andpowerful nation on earth. And with no assistance from outside sources, they obliged it to respecttheir natural strength and the evidence of their abilities. What is the use of invoking the doctrine thatoriginated as much with Monroe as with Canning, to extend its dominion in America in order toprevent foreign domination there and assure a continent of its freedom? Or must the dogma beinvoked against one foreign nation only to bring in another? Or does one shake off foreigndomination - which has a very different character, different interests, and different purposes - byputting on the appearance of freedom and surrendering it in action? Is it because the poison ofloans, canals, and railroads comes with the foreigner? Or does the doctrine have to be crammeddown the throats of the weaker nations of America by the nation that has Canada to the north, theGuiana's and Belize to the south, and sees to it that Spain is supported?

. . . The free nations of America have reason to expect that the nation whose influence threw theFrench out of Mexico will rid them of the troublesome foreigner, brought their perhaps because of adesire to raise a barrier against Saxon power in the world's imbalance. . . Walker went to Nicaraguafor the United States; for the United States Lopez went to Cuba. And now when slavery is no longeran excuse, the annexation alliance is afoot. Allen is talking about helping that of Cuba; Douglass isgoing to obtain that of Haiti and Santo Domingo. In Madrid Palmer is gauging Spain's feelings aboutthe sale of Cuba; in the Antilles the bribed Central American newspapers are stirring up interest inthe Washington-based annexation plans; in the lesser Antilles the Northern newspapers areconstantly giving reports on the progress of annexationist ideas. Washington persists in compellingColombia to acknowledge its dictatorial rights over the isthmus, and in depriving it of the authority todiscuss its territory with other nations. And the United States, by virtue of the civil war it instigated, isacquiring the Mole St. Nicolas peninsula in Haiti. Some people consider "Clay's dream" anaccomplished fact. Others consider it advisable to wait another half-century. Still others, born inSpanish America, believe they ought to help further the cause.

The Pan-American Congress will be an illustrious inventory showing in a dignified and energetic waywhich countries are defending the independence of Spanish America, the fulcrum of the world'sbalance of power. Or it may show whether or not any nations on a continent occupied by two peoplesof different character and objectives can, through fear or confusion of ingrained slavery or by beinginduced to consent, decrease by their own desertion the indispensable and already too meagerforces by which the family of a single nationality will be able to contain, with the respect it imposesand the wisdom it displays, attempts at domination by a nation reared in the hope of ruling thecontinent. Present-day events are proof of these attempts at dominance, and this at a time when theeagerness for markets on the part of its inflated industries, the opportunity to impose the predictedprotectorate upon the distant nations and the weak ones nearby the material strength needed for theassault, and the ambitions of a bold and rapacious politician, are described as reaching a peak.

Discussion 16

CHILE - History & Culture

The present-day country of Chile was born out of a very turbulent past. Her people have been guidedthrough the years by a variety of different leaders, philosophies, and constitutions.

Surrounded on three sides by virtually impassable barriers, Chile's rich central valley remainedlargely unknown to the outside world until the middle of the fifteenth century, when the Incas begantheir great conquests of much of the continent. Under Tupac Yupanqui, an Inca army succeeded incrossing the six hundred mile string of salt basins that are the Atacama Desert, moving from oasis tooasis in a region so dry that some parts of it show no evidence of ever having been rained upon. After coming at last into the central valley, the Incas encountered the Mapuche, one of the threeAraucanian peoples who occupied the region.

The invading army seemed at first to be enjoying the same success that the Incas were experiencingall over South America, and they advanced about half way down the valley's five hundred mile length.However, the Incas soon found that they had met their match in the Mapuche, who decisivelydefeated the Incan attempt to cross over the Rio Maule into the Lake District. The Incas establisheda stable presence in the territory they had gained, but they did not see fit to pursue the redoubtableMapuche any further.

Less than a century later, a Spanish army attempted to do just that. In 1541, Pedro de Valdaviacrossed into the central valley, having followed the Inca road south from Peru. He founded Santiagoin February, and soon afterward crossed into Mapuche domains and established strongholds there.In 1553, in a gesture no doubt familiar to the Spaniard Valdavia, they bound him to a tree andbeheaded him.

For the next four hundred years the Spanish, like the Incas before them, found it appropriate tomaintain a massive defensive presence in the central valley. During these centuries the regionsunder Spanish control were permitted to trade directly with Peru: smuggling flourished, andprivateers swarmed along the coasts.

Chile gained its independence from Spain in 1817, after seven years of warfare. The Mapuche regionto the south, which had remained largely independent of Spanish rule, also resisted the new Chileangovernment. Capable of marshalling full cavalry forces and even modern artillery, the Mapuchesucceeded in holding onto their autonomy until the middle of the century, when large numbers ofarmed settlers gradually moved into the region.

La Patria Vieja

The first government body was formed in 1810 and lasted until the "Battle of Rancagua" in 1814. In1811, a "provisional" constitution was adopted which vested temporary powers in the Chileancongress. In 1812, it was decided that Fernando VII would be ruler, but that the currently existingcongress would be accepted. Under the government of José Miguel Carrera, executive power wasvented in a government "junta", and it was declared that no foreign law would be recognized inChile. At this same time, a Senate was comprised of seven members who's responsibility was tosupport the Junta. The era of the Patria Vieja came to an end in 1814 when power was removed fromthe executive and vested in a "Supreme Dictator."

La Nueva Patria

The Nueva Patria lasted from 1814 until the end of Bernardo O'Higgins' government in 1823. O'Higginswas the first Supreme Dictator, and sought to regulate the lives of citizens through the followingconstitutional changes:1818 - Executive power would be vested in the Supreme Dictator and the system would be primarilyauthoritarian.1822 - The term of the Supreme Dictator would be limited to six years, but he could be re-elected for aperiod of four more. Since the new law would not be retroactive, this assured O'Higgins of ten moreyears as dictator, a situation which was not acceptable to many of the country's aristocracy.

National Disorganization

The period of time between 1823 and 1830 was one of anarchy. During these years, there werevarious attempts to control the country through a variety of laws which met only the barest standardof needs. In 1823, the Acta de Unión de Provincias was signed with the objectives of electing RamónFreire as Supreme Dictator, organizing the nation politically, and creating a Constitutional Congress.This congress was presided over by Juan Engaña, and was commissioned to write a new constitutionwhich was enacted later in 1823. This constitution was very "moralistic" in nature, and it turned out tobe impractical to enforce because it attempted to regulate the private lives of the citizens.

In 1826, Freire was renounced, and Manuel Blanco Encalada was elected as provisional Chief of Stateunder the title, "President of the Republic." Encalada commissioned the creation of yet anotherconstitution. Before work on the new constitution began, however, he approved a series of new lawsknown as the "Leyes Federales" which accomplished the following:

Divided the country into eight provinces in which provisional assemblies would be elected andcomposed of publicly elected deputies;

Municipal councils, governors, and parish priests would be elected by popular vote; and Executivepowers would reside in the President of the Republic who would be elected for a period of threeyears.

Application of this federalist regime created all kinds of problems. The self-serving ambitions ofsome leaders and rivalries among provinces combined to create a political crisis. In 1827, in order toappease the growing numbers of people who wanted change, a liberal named Don Francisco AntonioPinto was placed in power as Vice President.

In 1828, yet another constitutional congress came up with a new document. This new constitution wasmore liberal than the previous, but was still impractical. In 1829, as a result of the presidentialelection, a revolution developed in which the conservatives defeated the liberals, and this upheavalled to great public support regarding the need for a strong government. In 1833, José Joaquín Prietoassumed power, and another constitution was created.

Constitutions of the Republic

The constitution of 1833 had an "authoritarian" feel to it. Great executive power resided in thePresident of the Republic; so much power, in fact, that consideration was given to creating additionallegal tools which could be used by congress to control the executive. Still, this constitution remainedin effect until 1925.

In 1925, under the leadership of Jorge Alessandria, power between the executive and legislativebranches was equalized. With this change, the constitution remained in effect until it was suspendedat the beginning of the Pinochet regime in 1973. This suspension was in place until the foundation ofthe Constitution of 1980, the constitution which is still in effect today.

Although Chile's war of independence brought into place a system of representative democracy, thecountry's political history has not always been smooth. In 1970, a Marxist government under Dr.Salvador Allende came to power, having responded to the perceived failure of the established liberalparty. Allende's attempts to radically change the structure and direction of the country brought abouta second political crisis however, and in 1973 a right-wing government under General AugustoPinochet Ugarte seized power with assistance from the United States Central Intelligence Agency.Allende was killed in the coup, and Pinochet's government maintained power for the next decade anda half, frequently resorting to terror in order to stifle discontent.

In 1990, having failed in his bid to gain popular ratification for his rule, Pinochet handed over thepresidency to the rightfully- elected Patricio Aylwin Azocar. Chile's political climate has sinceremained stable, although there is still considerable tension between the military and thegovernment concerning the human rights violations of the Pinochet era.

Chile's population is composed predominantly of mestizos, who are descended from marriagebetween the Spanish colonizers and the indigenous people. The surviving indigenous groupsconsist of the Aymara, in the north, and the Mapuche, who number roughly 100,000 and continue toinhabit the forested areas of the lake district. Chile is also home to a number of significant immigrantgroups, including minority populations from virtually every European country. There are signifcantnumbers of Basques and Palestinians. The high proportion of mestizos among Chile's people hasmade race a minor issue in comparison to class, which continues to be a source of considerabletension. The great majority of Chile's people, as one might expect, are concentrated in the centralvalley. Spanish is the country's official language, but some of the Indian dialects remain. In the north,they speak Aymara, in the south Mapuche, and on Easter Island the Polynesian language of Rapa Nui.

CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES* - PREAMBLE*Signed in Bogotá in 1948 and amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires in 1967 and by the Protocolof Cartagena de Indias in 1985. In force as of November 16, 1988.

----------------------------------------------------------

IN THE NAME OF THEIR PEOPLES, THE STATES REPRESENTED AT THE NINTH INTERNATIONALCONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES,

Convinced that the historic mission of America is to offer to man a land of liberty and a favorableenvironment for the development of his personality and the realization of his just aspirations;

Conscious that that mission has already inspired numerous agreements, whose essential value liesin the desire of the American peoples to live together in peace and, through their mutualunderstanding and respect for the sovereignty of each one, to provide for the betterment of all, inindependence, in equality and under law;

Convinced that representative democracy is an indispensable condition for the stability, peace anddevelopment of the region;

Confident that the true significance of American solidarity and good neighborliness can only meanthe consolidation on this continent, within the framework of democratic institutions, of a system ofindividual liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights of man;

Persuaded that their welfare and their contribution to the progress and the civilization of the worldwill increasingly require intensive continental cooperation;

Resolved to persevere in the noble undertaking that humanity has conferred upon the UnitedNations, whose principles and purposes they solemnly reaffirm;

Convinced that juridical organization is a necessary condition for security and peace founded onmoral order and on justice; and

In accordance with Resolution IX of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace,held in Mexico City,

In 1889-1890 delegates from the nations of the Americas assembled in Washington, D.C. for the FirstInternational Conference of American States. Most of the session held on 10 April 1890 was spentdebating the nature of a memorial of the first gathering of representatives from the Americannations. The distinguished and eloquent Delegate from Colombia, Ambassador Carlos Martinez Silva,stated his views in the following manner:

"...the memorial to be erected ought to be something at once useful and made up of elements, towhich each government might contribute independently, [and] it occurred to me that the only planwhich would satisfy all these requirements was the establishment in Washington of a memoriallibrary, to which each government could send, on its own account, the most complete collectionpossible of historical, literary, and geographical works, laws, official reports, maps, etc., so that theresults of intellectual and scientific labor in all America might be collected together under a singleroof... That would be a monument more lasting and more noble than any in bronze or marble."

By a unanimous vote the motion was approved.

Almost immediately thereafter the collection of books and provision for reading and housing themwere provided by the Director of the Bureau of the American Republics. The first book actuallyregistered in the "Accessions Catalogue of the Library of the Bureau", on 27 October 1890, wasDelmar's Classified Trades Directory, 1889-1890, published by Belford, Clark and Company of Chicago.

The formal establishment of the library as the Columbus Memorial Library occurred on 24 January1902, when the Second International American Conference, meeting in Mexico, adopted a resolutionon the reorganization of the Bureau. In part, this resolution read as follows:

Under authority of the Governing Board of the International Union of the American Republics, and asa division of the Bureau of said Republics, a Latin American Library, to be known as the "ColumbusMemorial Library" is hereby established...

On 7 April 1902, the Governing Board appointed as first Librarian, Dr. Jose Ignacio Rodriguez, notedCuban scholar and book collector. He guided the affairs of the Library in its infancy, never ceasing towork for its constructive organization. One of his endeavors was to see the fulfillment of the projectmentioned in the following resolution of the Rio de Janeiro Conference held in 1906:

The Third International American Conference resolved...to express its gratification that the project toestablish a permanent center of information and of interchange of ideas among the Republics of thisContinent, as well as the erection of a building suitable for the Library in memory of Columbus, hasbeen realized...

This permanent center of information was located in the Pan American Union Building, which wasconstructed through the largesse of Mr. Andrew Carnegie, who gave $ 750,000 for the erection of theBuilding. The Columbus Memorial Library prospered and grew in this location until the size of thecollections far exceeded the space available for housing them in the Building.

In 1982 the Librarian recommended that the collections and staff of the Columbus Memorial Librarybe relocated to the Administrative Services Building in order to increase shelf space and to provideadditional space for readers. Upon approval by the Permanent Council, the renovation of theBasement and Ground Floor of the Building was initiated. The Columbus CHARTER OF THEORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES* - PREAMBLE*Signed in Bogotá in 1948 and amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires in 1967 and by the Protocolof Cartagena de Indias in 1985. In force as of November 16, 1988.

IN THE NAME OF THEIR PEOPLES, THE STATES REPRESENTED AT THE NINTH INTERNATIONALCONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES,

Convinced that the historic mission of America is to offer to man a land of liberty and a favorableenvironment for the development of his personality and the realization of his just aspirations;

Conscious that that mission has already inspired numerous agreements, whose essential value liesin the desire of the American peoples to live together in peace and, through their mutualunderstanding and respect for the sovereignty of each one, to provide for the betterment of all, inindependence, in equality and under law;

Convinced that representative democracy is an indispensable condition for the stability, peace anddevelopment of the region;

Confident that the true significance of American solidarity and good neighborliness can only meanthe consolidation on this continent, within the framework of democratic institutions, of a system ofindividual liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights of man;

Persuaded that their welfare and their contribution to the progress and the civilization of the worldwill increasingly require intensive continental cooperation;

Resolved to persevere in the noble undertaking that humanity has conferred upon the UnitedNations, whose principles and purposes they solemnly reaffirm;

Convinced that juridical organization is a necessary condition for security and peace founded onmoral order and on justice; and

In accordance with Resolution IX of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace,held in Mexico City,

HAVE AGREEDupon the following

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Memorial Library inaugurated services in its new quarters on 15 January 1988 continuing themandates of the farsighted delegates of the First International Conference of American States.

The Columbus Memorial Library is responsible for serving the entire OAS Secretariat, missions,researchers and scholars from Member countries and the rest of the world. In addition to acquiring,cataloging and providing reference services for traditional library materials, the library is alsoresponsible for a manuscripts collection, the archives and records management program anddocuments control programs.

The American States establish by this Charter the international organization that they havedeveloped to achieve an order of peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen theircollaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence.Within the United Nations, the Organization of American States is a regional agency.

The Organization of American States has no powers other than those expressly conferred upon it bythis Charter, none of whose provisions authorizes it to intervene in matters that are within theinternal jurisdiction of the Member States.

Article 2

The Organization of American States, in order to put into practice the principles on which it isfounded and to fulfill its regional obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, proclaims thefollowing essential purposes:

To strengthen the peace and security of the continent;

To promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the principle ofnonintervention;

To prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the pacific settlement of disputes that mayarise among the Member States;

To provide for common action on the part of those States in the event of aggression;

To seek the solution of political, juridical, and economic problems that may arise among them;

To promote, by cooperative action, their economic, social, and cultural development; and

To achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons that will make it possible to devote thelargest amount of resources to the economic and social development of the Member States.

Chapter II

PRINCIPLES

Article 3

The American States reaffirm the following principles:

International law is the standard of conduct of States in their reciprocal relations;

International order consists essentially of respect for the personality, sovereignty, andindependence of States, and the faithful fulfillment of obligations derived from treaties and othersources of international law;

Good faith shall govern the relations between States;

The solidarity of the American States and the high aims which are sought through it require thepolitical organization of those States on the basis of the effective exercise of representativedemocracy;

Every State has the right to choose, without external interference, its political, economic, and socialsystem and to organize itself in the way best suited to it, and has the duty to abstain from interveningin the affairs of another State. Subject to the foregoing, the American States shall cooperate fullyamong themselves, independently of the nature of their political, economic, and social systems;

The American States condemn war of aggression: victory does not give rights;

An act of aggression against one American State is an act of aggression against all the otherAmerican States;

Controversies of an international character arising between two or more American States shall besettled by peaceful procedures;

Social justice and social security are bases of lasting peace;

Economic cooperation is essential to the common welfare and prosperity of the peoples of thecontinent;

The American States proclaim the fundamental rights of the individual without distinction as to race,nationality, creed, or sex;

The spiritual unity of the continent is based on respect for the cultural values of the Americancountries and requires their close cooperation for the high purposes of civilization;

The education of peoples should be directed toward justice, freedom, and peace.

Chapter IIIMEMBERS

Article 4

All American States that ratify the present Charter are Members of the Organization.

Article 5

Any new political entity that arises from the union of several Member States and that, as such, ratifiesthe present Charter, shall become a Member of the Organization. The entry of the new political entityinto the Organization shall result in the loss of membership of each one of the States whichconstitute it.

Article 6

Any other independent American State that desires to become a Member of the Organization shouldso indicate by means of a note addressed to the Secretary General, in which it declares that it iswilling to sign and ratify the Charter of the Organization and to accept all the obligations inherent inmembership, especially those relating to collective security expressly set forth in Articles 27 and 28of the Charter.

Article 7

The General Assembly, upon the recommendation of the Permanent Council of the Organization, shalldetermine whether it is appropriate that the Secretary General be authorized to permit the applicantState to sign the Charter and to accept the deposit of the corresponding instrument of ratification.Both the recommendation of the Permanent Council and the decision of the General Assembly shallrequire the affirmative vote of two thirds of the Member States.

Article 8

Membership in the Organization shall be confined to independent States of the Hemisphere thatwere members of the United Nations as of December l0, l985, and the nonautonomous territoriesmentioned in document OEA/Ser. P, AG/doc.l939/85, of November 5, l985, when they becomeindependent.

Chapter IV

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES

Article 9

States are juridically equal, enjoy equal rights and equal capacity to exercise these rights, and haveequal duties. The rights of each State depend not upon its power to ensure the exercise thereof, butupon the mere fact of its existence as a person under international law.

Article l0

Every American State has the duty to respect the rights enjoyed by every other State in accordancewith international law.

Article ll

The fundamental rights of States may not be impaired in any manner whatsoever.

Article l2

The political existence of the State is independent of recognition by other States. Even before beingrecognized, the State has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for itspreservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate concerningits interests, to administer its services, and to determine the jurisdiction and competence of itscourts. The exercise of these rights is limited only by the exercise of the rights of other States inaccordance with international law.

Article l3

Recognition implies that the State granting it accepts the personality of the new State, with all therights and duties that international law prescribes for the two States.

Article l4

The right of each State to protect itself and to live its own life does not authorize it to commit unjustacts against another State.

Article l5

The jurisdiction of States within the limits of their national territory is exercised equally over all theinhabitants, whether nationals or aliens.

Article l6

Each State has the right to develop its cultural, political, and economic life freely and naturally. In thisfree development, the State shall respect the rights of the individual and the principles of universalmorality.

Article l7

Respect for and the faithful observance of treaties constitute standards for the development ofpeaceful relations among States. International treaties and agreements should be public.

Article l8

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever,in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armedforce but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the Stateor against its political, economic, and cultural elements.

Article l9

No State may use or encourage the use of coercive measures of an economic or political character inorder to force the sovereign will of another State and obtain from it advantages of any kind.

Article 20

The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupationor of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever.No territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained either by force or by other means ofcoercion shall be recognized.

Article 2l

The American States bind themselves in their international relations not to have recourse to the useof force, except in the case of self-defense in accordance with existing treaties or in fulfillmentthereof.

Article 22

Measures adopted for the maintenance of peace and security in accordance with existing treaties donot constitute a violation of the principles set forth in Articles l8 and 20.

Chapter V

PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

Article 23

International disputes between Member States shall be submitted to the peaceful procedures setforth in this Charter.

This provision shall not be interpreted as an impairment of the rights and obligations of the MemberStates under Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 24

The following are peaceful procedures: direct negotiation, good offices, mediation, investigation andconciliation, judicial settlement, arbitration, and those which the parties to the dispute may especiallyagree upon at any time.

Article 25

In the event that a dispute arises between two or more American States which, in the opinion of oneof them, cannot be settled through the usual diplomatic channels, the parties shall agree on someother peaceful procedure that will enable them to reach a solution.

Article 26

A special treaty will establish adequate means for the settlement of disputes and will determinepertinent procedures for each peaceful means such that no dispute between American States mayremain without definitive settlement within a reasonable period of time.

Chapter VI

COLLECTIVE SECURITY

Article 27

Every act of aggression by a State against the territorial integrity or the inviolability of the territory oragainst the sovereignty or political independence of an American State shall be considered an act ofaggression against the other American States.

Article 28

If the inviolability or the integrity of the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of anyAmerican State should be affected by an armed attack or by an act of aggression that is not an armedattack, or by an extracontinental conflict, or by a conflict between two or more American States, or byany other fact or situation that might endanger the peace of America, the American States, infurtherance of the principles of continental solidarity or collective self-defense, shall apply themeasures and procedures established in the special treaties on the subject.

technology through educational, research, and technological development activities and informationand dissemination programs. They will stimulate activities in the field of technology for the purposeof adapting it to the needs of their integral development. They will organize their cooperation inthese fields efficiently and will substantially increase exchange of knowledge, in accordance withnational objectives and laws and with treaties in force.

Chapter VII

INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT

Article 29

The Member States, inspired by the principles of inter-American solidarity and cooperation, pledgethemselves to a united effort to ensure international social justice in their relations and integraldevelopment for their peoples, as conditions essential to peace and security. Integral developmentencompasses the economic, social, educational, cultural, scientific, and technological fields throughwhich the goals that each country sets for accomplishing it should be achieved.

Article 30

Inter-American cooperation for integral development is the common and joint responsibility of theMember States, within the framework of the democratic principles and the institutions of the inter-American system. It should include the economic, social, educational, cultural, scientific, andtechnological fields, support the achievement of national objectives of the Member States, andrespect the priorities established by each country in its development plans, without political ties orconditions.

Article 31

Inter-American cooperation for integral development should be continuous and preferably channeledthrough multilateral organizations, without prejudice to bilateral cooperation between Member States.

The Member States shall contribute to inter-American cooperation for integral development inaccordance with their resources and capabilities and in conformity with their laws.

Article 32

Development is a primary responsibility of each country and should constitute an integral andcontinuous process for the establishment of a more just economic and social order that will makepossible and contribute to the fulfillment of the individual.

Article 33

The Member States agree that equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth and income,and the full participation of their peoples in decisions relating to their own development are, amongothers, basic objectives of integral development. To achieve them, they likewise agree to devotetheir utmost efforts to accomplishing the following basic goals:

Substantial and self-sustained increase of per capita national product;

Equitable distribution of national income;

Adequate and equitable systems of taxation;

Modernization of rural life and reforms leading to equitable and efficient land-tenure systems,increased agricultural productivity, expanded use of land, diversification of production and improvedprocessing and marketing systems for agricultural products; and the strengthening and expansion ofthe means to attain these ends;

Accelerated and diversified industrialization, especially of capital and intermediate goods;

Stability of domestic price levels, compatible with sustained economic development and theattainment of social justice;

Fair wages, employment opportunities, and acceptable working conditions for all;

Rapid eradication of illiteracy and expansion of educational opportunities for all;

Protection of man's potential through the extension and application of modern medical science;

Proper nutrition, especially through the acceleration of national efforts to increase the productionand availability of food;

Adequate housing for all sectors of the population;

Urban conditions that offer the opportunity for a healthful, productive, and full life;

Promotion of private initiative and investment in harmony with action in the public sector; and

Expansion and diversification of exports.

Article 34

The Member States should refrain from practicing policies and adopting actions or measures thathave serious adverse effects on the development of other Member States.

Article 35

Transnational enterprises and foreign private investment shall be subject to the legislation of thehost countries and to the jurisdiction of their competent courts and to the international treaties andagreements to which said countries are parties, and should conform to the development policies ofthe recipient countries.

Article 36

The Member States agree to join together in seeking a solution to urgent or critical problems thatmay arise whenever the economic development or stability of any Member State is seriously affectedby conditions that cannot be remedied through the efforts of that State.

Article 37

The Member States shall extend among themselves the benefits of science and technology byencouraging the exchange and utilization of scientific and technical knowledge in accordance withexisting treaties and national laws.

Article 38

The Member States, recognizing the close interdependence between foreign trade and economicand social development, should make individual and united efforts to bring about the following:

Favorable conditions of access to world markets for the products of the developing countries of theregion, particularly through the reduction or elimination, by importing countries, of tariff and nontariffbarriers that affect the exports of the Member States of the Organization, except when such barriersare applied in order to diversify the economic structure, to speed up the development of the less-developed Member States, and intensify their process of economic integration, or when they arerelated to national security or to the needs of economic balance;

Continuity in their economic and social development by means of:

Improved conditions for trade in basic commodities through international agreements, whereappropriate; orderly marketing procedures that avoid the disruption of markets, and other measuresdesigned to promote the expansion of markets and to obtain dependable incomes for producers,adequate and dependable supplies for consumers, and stable prices that are both remunerative toproducers and fair to consumers;

Improved international financial cooperation and the adoption of other means for lessening theadverse impact of sharp fluctuations in export earnings experienced by the countries exportingbasic commodities;

Diversification of exports and expansion of export opportunities for manufactured andsemimanufactured products from the developing countries; and

Conditions conducive to increasing the real export earnings of the Member States, particularly thedeveloping countries of the region, and to increasing their participation in international trade.

Article 39

The Member States reaffirm the principle that when the more developed countries grantconcessions in international trade agreements that lower or eliminate tariffs or other barriers toforeign trade so that they benefit the less-developed countries, they should not expect reciprocalconcessions from those countries that are incompatible with their economic development, financial,and trade needs.

Article 40

The Member States, in order to accelerate their economic development, regional integration, and theexpansion and improvement of the conditions of their commerce, shall promote improvement andcoordination of transportation and communication in the developing countries and among theMember States.

Article 41

The Member States recognize that integration of the developing countries of the Hemisphere is oneof the objectives of the inter-American system and, therefore, shall orient their efforts and take thenecessary measures to accelerate the integration process, with a view to establishing a LatinAmerican common market in the shortest possible time.

Article 42

In order to strengthen and accelerate integration in all its aspects, the Member States agree to giveadequate priority to the preparation and carrying out of multinational projects and to their financing,as well as to encourage economic and financial institutions of the inter-American system to continuegiving their broadest support to regional integration institutions and programs.

Article 43

The Member States agree that technical and financial cooperation that seeks to promote regionaleconomic integration should be based on the principle of harmonious, balanced, and efficientdevelopment, with particular attention to the relatively less-developed countries, so that it may be adecisive factor that will enable them to promote, with their own efforts, the improved development oftheir infrastructure programs, new lines of production, and export diversification.

Article 44

The Member States, convinced that man can only achieve the full realization of his aspirations withina just social order, along with economic development and true peace, agree to dedicate every effortto the application of the following principles and mechanisms:

All human beings, without distinction as to race, sex, nationality, creed, or social condition, have aright to material well-being and to their spiritual development, under circumstances of liberty, dignity,equality of opportunity, and economic security;

Work is a right and a social duty, it gives dignity to the one who performs it, and it should beperformed under conditions, including a system of fair wages, that ensure life, health, and a decentstandard of living for the worker and his family, both during his working years and in his old age, orwhen any circumstance deprives him of the possibility of working;

Employers and workers, both rural and urban, have the right to associate themselves freely for thedefense and promotion of their interests, including the right to collective bargaining and theworkers' right to strike, and recognition of the juridical personality of associations and the protectionof their freedom and independence, all in accordance with applicable laws;

Fair and efficient systems and procedures for consultation and collaboration among the sectors ofproduction, with due regard for safeguarding the interests of the entire society;

The operation of systems of public administration, banking and credit, enterprise, and distributionand sales, in such a way, in harmony with the private sector, as to meet the requirements andinterests of the community;

The incorporation and increasing participation of the marginal sectors of the population, in both ruraland urban areas, in the economic, social, civic, cultural, and political life of the nation, in order toachieve the full integration of the national community, acceleration of the process of social mobility,and the consolidation of the democratic system. The encouragement of all efforts of popularpromotion and cooperation that have as their purpose the development and progress of thecommunity;

Recognition of the importance of the contribution of organizations such as labor unions,cooperatives, and cultural, professional, business, neighborhood, and community associations to thelife of the society and to the development process;

Development of an efficient social security policy; and

Adequate provision for all persons to have due legal aid in order to secure their rights.

Article 45

The Member States recognize that, in order to facilitate the process of Latin American regionalintegration, it is necessary to harmonize the social legislation of the developing countries, especiallyin the labor and social security fields, so that the rights of the workers shall be equally protected, andthey agree to make the greatest efforts possible to achieve this goal.

Article 46

The Member States will give primary importance within their development plans to theencouragement of education, science, technology, and culture, oriented toward the overallimprovement of the individual, and as a foundation for democracy, social justice, and progress.

Article 47

The Member States will cooperate with one another to meet their educational needs, to promotescientific research, and to encourage technological progress for their integral development. Theywill consider themselves individually and jointly bound to preserve and enrich the cultural heritageof the American peoples.

Article 48

The Member States will exert the greatest efforts, in accordance with their constitutional processes,to ensure the effective exercise of the right to education, on the following bases:

Elementary education, compulsory for children of school age, shall also be offered to all others whocan benefit from it. When provided by the State it shall be without charge;

Middle-level education shall be extended progressively to as much of the population as possible,with a view to social improvement. It shall be diversified in such a way that it meets the developmentneeds of each country without prejudice to providing a general education; and

Higher education shall be available to all, provided that, in order to maintain its high level, thecorresponding regulatory or academic standards are met.

Article 49

The Member States will give special attention to the eradication of illiteracy, will strengthen adult andvocational education systems, and will ensure that the benefits of culture will be available to theentire population. They will promote the use of all information media to fulfill these aims.

Article 50

The Member States will develop science and technology through educational, research, andtechnological development activities and information and dissemination programs. They willstimulate activities in the field of technology for the purpose of adapting it to the needs of theirintegral development. They will organize their cooperation in these fields efficiently and willsubstantially increase exchange of knowledge, in accordance with national objectives and laws andwith treaties in force.

Article 51

The Member States, with due respect for the individuality of each of them, agree to promote culturalexchange as an effective means of consolidating inter-American understanding; and they recognizethat regional integration programs should be strengthened by close ties in the fields of education,science, and culture.

PART TWO

Chapter VIII

THE ORGANS

Article 52

The Organization of American States accomplishes its purposes by means of:

The General Assembly;

The Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs;

The Councils;

The Inter-American Juridical Committee;

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights;

The General Secretariat;

The Specialized Conferences; and

The Specialized Organizations.There may be established, in addition to those provided for in the Charter and in accordance with theprovisions thereof, such subsidiary organs, agencies, and other entities as are considerednecessary.

The General Assembly is the supreme organ of the Organization of American States. It has as itsprincipal powers, in addition to such others as are assigned to it by the Charter, the following:

To decide the general action and policy of the Organization, determine the structure and functions ofits organs, and consider any matter relating to friendly relations among the American States;

To establish measures for coordinating the activities of the organs, agencies, and entities of theOrganization among themselves, and such activities with those of the other institutions of the inter-American system;

To strengthen and coordinate cooperation with the United Nations and its specialized agencies;

To promote collaboration, especially in the economic, social, and cultural fields, with otherinternational organizations whose purposes are similar to those of the Organization of AmericanStates;

To approve the program-budget of the Organization and determine the quotas of the Member States;

To consider the reports of the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and theobservations and recommendations presented by the Permanent Council with regard to the reportsthat should be presented by the other organs and entities, in accordance with the provisions ofparagraph f) of Article 90, as well as the reports of any organ which may be required by the GeneralAssembly itself;

To adopt general standards to govern the operations of the General Secretariat; and

To adopt its own rules of procedure and, by a two-thirds vote, its agenda.The General Assembly shall exercise its powers in accordance with the provisions of the Charter andof other inter-American treaties.

Article 54

The General Assembly shall establish the bases for fixing the quota that each Government is tocontribute to the maintenance of the Organization, taking into account the ability to pay of therespective countries and their determination to contribute in an equitable manner. Decisions onbudgetary matters require the approval of two thirds of the Member States.

Article 55

All member States have the right to be represented in the General Assembly. Each State has the rightto one vote.

Article 56

The General Assembly shall convene annually during the period determined by the rules ofprocedure and at a place selected in accordance with the principle of rotation. At each regularsession the date and place of the next regular session shall be determined, in accordance with therules of procedure.

If for any reason the General Assembly cannot be held at the place chosen, it shall meet at theGeneral Secretariat, unless one of the Member States should make a timely offer of a site in itsterritory, in which case the Permanent Council of the Organization may agree that the GeneralAssembly will meet in that place.

Article 57

In special circumstances and with the approval of two thirds of the Member States, the PermanentCouncil shall convoke a special session of the General Assembly.

Article 58

Decisions of the General Assembly shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of an absolute majority ofthe Member States, except in those cases that require a two-thirds vote as provided in the Charteror as may be provided by the General Assembly in its rules of procedure.

Article 59

There shall be a Preparatory Committee of the General Assembly, composed of representatives of allthe Member States, which shall:

Prepare the draft agenda of each session of the General Assembly;

Review the proposed program-budget and the draft resolution on quotas, and present to the GeneralAssembly a report thereon containing the recommendations it considers appropriate; and

Carry out such other functions as the General Assembly may assign to it.The draft agenda and the report shall, in due course, be transmitted to the Governments of theMember States.

The Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs shall be held in order to considerproblems of an urgent nature and of common interest to the American States, and to serve as theOrgan of Consultation.

Article 61

Any Member State may request that a Meeting of Consultation be called. The request shall beaddressed to the Permanent Council of the Organization, which shall decide by an absolute majoritywhether a meeting should be held.

Article 62

The agenda and regulations of the Meeting of Consultation shall be prepared by the PermanentCouncil of the Organization and submitted to the Member States for consideration.

Article 63

If, for exceptional reasons, a Minister of Foreign Affairs is unable to attend the meeting, he shall berepresented by a special delegate.

Article 64

In case of an armed attack on the territory of an American State or within the region of securitydelimited by the treaty in force, the Chairman of the Permanent Council shall without delay call ameeting of the Council to decide on the convocation of the Meeting of Consultation, withoutprejudice to the provisions of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance with regard to theStates Parties to that instrument.

Article 65

An Advisory Defense Committee shall be established to advise the Organ of Consultation onproblems of military cooperation that may arise in connection with the application of existing specialtreaties on collective security.

Article 66

The Advisory Defense Committee shall be composed of the highest military authorities of theAmerican States participating in the Meeting of Consultation. Under exceptional circumstances theGovernments may appoint substitutes. Each State shall be entitled to one vote.

Article 67

The Advisory Defense Committee shall be convoked under the same conditions as the Organ ofConsultation, when the latter deals with matters relating to defense against aggression.

Article 68

The Committee shall also meet when the General Assembly or the Meeting of Consultation or theGovernments, by a two-thirds majority of the Member States, assign to it technical studies or reportson specific subjects.

The Permanent Council of the Organization, the Inter-American Economic and Social Council, and theInter-American Council for Education, Science, and Culture are directly responsible to the GeneralAssembly and each has the authority granted to it in the Charter and other inter-Americaninstruments, as well as the functions assigned to it by the General Assembly and the Meeting ofConsultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs.

Article 70

All Member States have the right to be represented on each of the Councils. Each State has the rightto one vote.

Article 71

The Councils may, within the limits of the Charter and other inter-American instruments, makerecommendations on matters within their authority.

Article 72

The Councils, on matters within their respective competence, may present to the General Assemblystudies and proposals, drafts of international instruments, and proposals on the holding ofspecialized conferences, on the creation, modification, or elimination of specialized organizationsand other inter-American agencies, as well as on the coordination of their activities. The Councilsmay also present studies, proposals, and drafts of international instruments to the SpecializedConferences.

Article 73

Each Council may, in urgent cases, convoke Specialized Conferences on matters within itscompetence, after consulting with the Member States and without having to resort to the procedureprovided for in Article l27.

Article 74

The Councils, to the extent of their ability, and with the cooperation of the General Secretariat, shallrender to the Governments such specialized services as the latter may request.

Article 75

Each Council has the authority to require the other Councils, as well as the subsidiary organs andagencies responsible to them, to provide it with information and advisory services on matters withintheir respective spheres of competence. The Councils may also request the same services from theother agencies of the inter-American system.

Article 76

With the prior approval of the General Assembly, the Councils may establish the subsidiary organsand the agencies that they consider advisable for the better performance of their duties. When theGeneral Assembly is not in session, the aforesaid organs or agencies may be establishedprovisionally by the corresponding Council. In constituting the membership of these bodies, theCouncils, insofar as possible, shall follow the criteria of rotation and equitable geographicrepresentation.

Article 77

The Councils may hold meetings in any Member State, when they find it advisable and with the priorconsent of the Government concerned.

Article 78

Each Council shall prepare its own statutes and submit them to the General Assembly for approval. Itshall approve its own rules of procedure and those of its subsidiary organs, agencies, andcommittees.

The Permanent Council of the Organization is composed of one representative of each MemberState, especially appointed by the respective Government, with the rank of ambassador. EachGovernment may accredit an acting representative, as well as such alternates and advisers as itconsiders necessary.

Article 80

The office of Chairman of the Permanent Council shall be held by each of the representatives, in turn,following the alphabetic order in Spanish of the names of their respective countries. The office ofVice Chairman shall be filled in the same way, following reverse alphabetic order.

The Chairman and the Vice Chairman shall hold office for a term of not more than six months, whichshall be determined by the statutes.

Article 81

Within the limits of the Charter and of inter-American treaties and agreements, the PermanentCouncil takes cognizance of any matter referred to it by the General Assembly or the Meeting ofConsultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs.

Article 82

The Permanent Council shall serve provisionally as the Organ of Consultation in conformity with theprovisions of the special treaty on the subject.

Article 83

The Permanent Council shall keep vigilance over the maintenance of friendly relations among theMember States, and for that purpose shall effectively assist them in the peaceful settlement of theirdisputes, in accordance with the following provisions.

Article 84

In accordance with the provisions of this Charter, any party to a dispute in which none of thepeaceful procedures provided for in the Charter is under way may resort to the Permanent Council toobtain its good offices. The Council, following the provisions of the preceding article, shall assist theparties and recommend the procedures it considers suitable for peaceful settlement of the dispute.

Article 85

In the exercise of its functions and with the consent of the parties to the dispute, the PermanentCouncil may establish ad hoc committees.

The ad hoc committees shall have the membership and the mandate that the Permanent Councilagrees upon in each individual case, with the consent of the parties to the dispute.

Article 86

The Permanent Council may also, by such means as it deems advisable, investigate the facts in thedispute, and may do so in the territory of any of the parties, with the consent of the Governmentconcerned.

Article 87

If the procedure for peaceful settlement of disputes recommended by the Permanent Council orsuggested by the pertinent ad hoc committee under the terms of its mandate is not accepted by oneof the parties, or one of the parties declares that the procedure has not settled the dispute, thePermanent Council shall so inform the General Assembly, without prejudice to its taking steps tosecure agreement between the parties or to restore relations between them.

Article 88

The Permanent Council, in the exercise of these functions, shall take its decisions by an affirmativevote of two thirds of its members, excluding the parties to the dispute, except for such decisions asthe rules of procedure provide shall be adopted by a simple majority.

Article 89

In performing their functions with respect to the peaceful settlement of disputes, the PermanentCouncil and the respective ad hoc committee shall observe the provisions of the Charter and theprinciples and standards of international law, as well as take into account the existence of treaties inforce between the parties.

Article 90

The Permanent Council shall also:

Carry out those decisions of the General Assembly or of the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers ofForeign Affairs the implementation of which has not been assigned to any other body;

Watch over the observance of the standards governing the operation of the General Secretariat and,when the General Assembly is not in session, adopt provisions of a regulatory nature that enable theGeneral Secretariat to carry out its administrative functions;

Act as the Preparatory Committee of the General Assembly, in accordance with the terms of Article 59of the Charter, unless the General Assembly should decide otherwise;

Prepare, at the request of the Member States and with the cooperation of the appropriate organs ofthe Organization, draft agreements to promote and facilitate cooperation between the Organization ofAmerican States and the United Nations or between the Organization and other American agencies ofrecognized international standing. These draft agreements shall be submitted to the GeneralAssembly for approval;

Submit recommendations to the General Assembly with regard to the functioning of the Organizationand the coordination of its subsidiary organs, agencies, and committees;

Consider the reports of the other Councils, of the Inter-American Juridical Committee, of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, of the General Secretariat, of specialized agencies andconferences, and of other bodies and agencies, and present to the General Assembly anyobservations and recommendations it deems necessary; and

Perform the other functions assigned to it in the Charter.Article 91

The Permanent Council and the General Secretariat shall have the same seat.

The Inter-American Economic and Social Council is composed of one principal representative, of thehighest rank, of each Member State, especially appointed by the respective Government.

Article 93

The purpose of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council is to promote cooperation among theAmerican countries in order to attain accelerated economic and social development, in accordancewith the standards set forth in Chapter VII.

Article 94

To achieve its purpose the Inter-American Economic and Social Council shall:

Recommend programs and courses of action and periodically study and evaluate the effortsundertaken by the Member States;

Promote and coordinate all economic and social activities of the Organization;

Coordinate its activities with those of the other Councils of the Organization;

Establish cooperative relations with the corresponding organs of the United Nations and with othernational and international agencies, especially with regard to coordination of inter-Americantechnical assistance programs; and

Promote the solution of the cases contemplated in Article 36 of the Charter, establishing theappropriate procedure.

Article 95

The Inter-American Economic and Social Council shall hold at least one meeting each year at theministerial level. It shall also meet when convoked by the General Assembly, the Meeting ofConsultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, at its own initiative, or for the cases contemplated inArticle 36 of the Charter.

Article 96

The Inter-American Economic and Social Council shall have a Permanent Executive Committee,composed of a Chairman and no less than seven other members, elected by the Council for terms tobe established in the statutes of the Council. Each member shall have the right to one vote. Theprinciples of equitable geographic representation and of rotation shall be taken into account, insofaras possible, in the election of members. The Permanent Executive Committee represents all of theMember States of the Organization.

Article 97

The Permanent Executive Committee shall perform the tasks assigned to it by the Inter-AmericanEconomic and Social Council, in accordance with the general standards established by the Council.

The Inter-American Council for Education, Science, and Culture is composed of one principalrepresentative, of the highest rank, of each Member State, especially appointed by the respectiveGovernment.

Article 99

The purpose of the Inter-American Council for Education, Science, and Culture is to promote friendlyrelations and mutual understanding between the peoples of the Americas through educational,scientific, and cultural cooperation and exchange between Member States, in order to raise thecultural level of the peoples, reaffirm their dignity as individuals, prepare them fully for the tasks ofprogress, and strengthen the devotion to peace, democracy, and social justice that hascharacterized their evolution.

Article 100

To accomplish its purpose the Inter-American Council for Education, Science, and Culture shall:

Promote and coordinate the educational, scientific, and cultural activities of the Organization;

Support individual or collective efforts of the Member States to improve and extend education at alllevels, giving special attention to efforts directed toward community development;

Recommend and encourage the adoption of special educational programs directed towardintegrating all sectors of the population into their respective national cultures;

Stimulate and support scientific and technological education and research, especially when theserelate to national development plans;

Foster the exchange of professors, research workers, technicians, and students, as well as of studymaterials; and encourage the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements on the progressivecoordination of curricula at all educational levels and on the validity and equivalence of certificatesand degrees;

Promote the education of the American peoples with a view to harmonious international relations anda better understanding of the historical and cultural origins of the Americas, in order to stress andpreserve their common values and destiny;

Systematically encourage intellectual and artistic creativity, the exchange of cultural works andfolklore, as well as the interrelationships of the different cultural regions of the Americas;

Foster cooperation and technical assistance for protecting, preserving, and increasing the culturalheritage of the Hemisphere;

Coordinate its activities with those of the other Councils. In harmony with the Inter-AmericanEconomic and Social Council, encourage the interrelationship of programs for promoting education,science, and culture with national development and regional integration programs;

Establish cooperative relations with the corresponding organs of the United Nations and with othernational and international bodies;

Strengthen the civic conscience of the American peoples, as one of the bases for the effectiveexercise of democracy and for the observance of the rights and duties of man;

Recommend appropriate procedures for intensifying integration of the developing countries of theHemisphere by means of efforts and programs in the fields of education, science, and culture; andStudy and evaluate periodically the efforts made by the Member States in the fields of education,science, and culture.

Article 101

The Inter-American Council for Education, Science, and Culture shall hold at least one meeting eachyear at the ministerial level. It shall also meet when convoked by the General Assembly, by theMeeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, or at its own initiative.

Article 102

The Inter-American Council for Education, Science, and Culture shall have a Permanent ExecutiveCommittee, composed of a Chairman and no less than seven other members, elected by the Councilfor terms to be established in the statutes of the Council. Each member shall have the right to onevote. The principles of equitable geographic representation and of rotation shall be taken intoaccount, insofar as possible, in the election of members. The Permanent Executive Committeerepresents all of the Member States of the Organization.

Article 103

The Permanent Executive Committee shall perform the tasks assigned to it by the Inter-AmericanCouncil for Education, Science, and Culture, in accordance with the general standards established bythe Council.

The purpose of the Inter-American Juridical Committee is to serve the Organization as an advisorybody on juridical matters; to promote the progressive development and the codification ofinternational law; and to study juridical problems related to the integration of the developingcountries of the Hemisphere and, insofar as may appear desirable, the possibility of attaininguniformity in their legislation.

Article 105

The Inter-American Juridical Committee shall undertake the studies and preparatory work assigned toit by the General Assembly, the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, or theCouncils of the Organization. It may also, on its own initiative, undertake such studies andpreparatory work as it considers advisable, and suggest the holding of specialized juridicalconferences.

Article 106

The Inter-American Juridical Committee shall be composed of eleven jurists, nationals of MemberStates, elected by the General Assembly for a period of four years from panels of three candidatespresented by Member States. In the election, a system shall be used that takes into account partialreplacement of membership and, insofar as possible, equitable geographic representation. No twomembers of the Committee may be nationals of the same State.

Vacancies that occur for reasons other than normal expiration of the terms of office of the membersof the Committee shall be filled by the Permanent Council of the Organization in accordance with thecriteria set forth in the preceding paragraph.

Article 107

The Inter-American Juridical Committee represents all of the Member States of the Organization, andhas the broadest possible technical autonomy.

Article 108

The Inter-American Juridical Committee shall establish cooperative relations with universities,institutes, and other teaching centers, as well as with national and international committees andentities devoted to study, research, teaching, or dissemination of information on juridical matters ofinternational interest.

Article 109

The Inter-American Juridical Committee shall draft its statutes, which shall be submitted to theGeneral Assembly for approval.

The Committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure.

Article 110

The seat of the Inter-American Juridical Committee shall be the city of Rio de Janeiro, but in specialcases the Committee may meet at any other place that may be designated, after consultation with theMember State concerned.

There shall be an Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, whose principal function shall be topromote the observance and protection of human rights and to serve as a consultative organ of theOrganization in these matters.

An inter-American convention on human rights shall determine the structure, competence, andprocedure of this Commission, as well as those of other organs responsible for these matters

The General Secretariat is the central and permanent organ of the Organization of American States. Itshall perform the functions assigned to it in the Charter, in other inter-American treaties andagreements, and by the General Assembly, and shall carry out the duties entrusted to it by theGeneral Assembly, the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, or the Councils.

Article 113

The Secretary General of the Organization shall be elected by the General Assembly for a five-yearterm and may not be reelected more than once or succeeded by a person of the same nationality. Inthe event that the office of Secretary General becomes vacant, the Assistant Secretary General shallassume his duties until the General Assembly shall elect a new Secretary General for a full term.

Article 114

The Secretary General shall direct the General Secretariat, be the legal representative thereof, and,notwithstanding the provisions of Article 90.b, be responsible to the General Assembly for the properfulfillment of the obligations and functions of the General Secretariat.

Article 115

The Secretary General, or his representative, may participate with voice but without vote in allmeetings of the Organization.

The Secretary General may bring to the attention of the General Assembly or the Permanent Councilany matter which in his opinion might threaten the peace and security of the Hemisphere or thedevelopment of the Member States.

The authority to which the preceding paragraph refers shall be exercised in accordance with thepresent Charter.

Article 116

The General Secretariat shall promote economic, social, juridical, educational, scientific, and culturalrelations among all the Member States of the Organization, in keeping with the actions and policiesdecided upon by the General Assembly and with the pertinent decisions of the Councils.

Article 117

The General Secretariat shall also perform the following functions:

Transmit ex officio to the Member States notice of the convocation of the General Assembly, theMeeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Inter-American Economic and SocialCouncil, the Inter-American Council for Education, Science, and Culture, and the SpecializedConferences;

Advise the other organs, when appropriate, in the preparation of agenda and rules of procedure;

Prepare the proposed program-budget of the Organization on the basis of programs adopted by theCouncils, agencies, and entities whose expenses should be included in the program-budget and,after consultation with the Councils or their permanent committees, submit it to the PreparatoryCommittee of the General Assembly and then to the Assembly itself;

Provide, on a permanent basis, adequate secretariat services for the General Assembly and theother organs, and carry out their directives and assignments. To the extent of its ability, provideservices for the other meetings of the Organization;

Serve as custodian of the documents and archives of the Inter-American Conferences, the GeneralAssembly, the Meetings of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Councils, and theSpecialized Conferences;

Serve as depository of inter-American treaties and agreements, as well as of the instruments ofratification thereof;

Submit to the General Assembly at each regular session an annual report on the activities of theOrganization and its financial condition; and

Establish relations of cooperation, in accordance with decisions reached by the General Assembly orthe Councils, with the Specialized Organizations as well as other national and internationalorganizations.

Article 118

The Secretary General shall:

Establish such offices of the General Secretariat as are necessary to accomplish its purposes; and

Determine the number of officers and employees of the General Secretariat, appoint them, regulatetheir powers and duties, and fix their remuneration.The Secretary General shall exercise this authority in accordance with such general standards andbudgetary provisions as may be established by the General Assembly.

Article 119

The Assistant Secretary General shall be elected by the General Assembly for a five-year term andmay not be reelected more than once or succeeded by a person of the same nationality. In the eventthat the office of Assistant Secretary General becomes vacant, the Permanent Council shall elect asubstitute to hold that office until the General Assembly shall elect a new Assistant Secretary Generalfor a full term.

Article 120

The Assistant Secretary General shall be the Secretary of the Permanent Council. He shall serve asadvisory officer to the Secretary General and shall act as his delegate in all matters that the SecretaryGeneral may entrust to him. During the temporary absence or disability of the Secretary General, theAssistant Secretary General shall perform his functions.

The Secretary General and the Assistant Secretary General shall be of different nationalities.

Article 121

The General Assembly, by a two-thirds vote of the Member States, may remove the Secretary Generalor the Assistant Secretary General, or both, whenever the proper functioning of the Organization sodemands.

Article 122

The Secretary General shall appoint, with the approval of the respective Council, the ExecutiveSecretary for Economic and Social Affairs and the Executive Secretary for Education, Science, andCulture, who shall also be the secretaries of the respective Councils.

Article 123

In the performance of their duties, the Secretary General and the personnel of the Secretariat shallnot seek or receive instructions from any Government or from any authority outside the Organization,and shall refrain from any action that may be incompatible with their position as international officersresponsible only to the Organization.

Article 124

The Member States pledge themselves to respect the exclusively international character of theresponsibilities of the Secretary General and the personnel of the General Secretariat, and not toseek to influence them in the discharge of their duties.

Article 125

In selecting the personnel of the General Secretariat, first consideration shall be given to efficiency,competence, and integrity; but at the same time, in the recruitment of personnel of all ranks,importance shall be given to the necessity of obtaining as wide a geographic representation aspossible.

The Specialized Conferences are intergovernmental meetings to deal with special technical mattersor to develop specific aspects of inter-American cooperation. They shall be held when either theGeneral Assembly or the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs so decides, on itsown initiative or at the request of one of the Councils or Specialized Organizations.

Article 128

The agenda and rules of procedure of the Specialized Conferences shall be prepared by the Councilsor Specialized Organizations concerned and shall be submitted to the Governments of the MemberStates for consideration.

For the purposes of the present Charter, Inter-American Specialized Organizations are theintergovernmental organizations established by multilateral agreements and having specificfunctions with respect to technical matters of common interest to the American States.

Article 130

The General Secretariat shall maintain a register of the organizations that fulfill the conditions setforth in the foregoing Article, as determined by the General Assembly after a report from the Councilconcerned.

Article 131

The Specialized Organizations shall enjoy the fullest technical autonomy, but they shall take intoaccount the recommendations of the General Assembly and of the Councils, in accordance with theprovisions of the Charter.

Article 132

The Specialized Organizations shall transmit to the General Assembly annual reports on the progressof their work and on their annual budgets and expenses.

Article 133

Relations that should exist between the Specialized Organizations and the Organization shall bedefined by means of agreements concluded between each organization and the Secretary General,with the authorization of the General Assembly.

Article 134

The Specialized Organizations shall establish cooperative relations with world agencies of the samecharacter in order to coordinate their activities. In concluding agreements with internationalagencies of a worldwide character, the Inter-American Specialized Organizations shall preserve theiridentity and their status as integral parts of the Organization of American States, even when theyperform regional functions of international agencies.

Article 135

In determining the location of the Specialized Organizations consideration shall be given to theinterest of all of the Member States and to the desirability of selecting the seats of theseorganizations on the basis of a geographic representation as equitable as possible.

PART THREE

Chapter XX

THE UNITED NATIONS

Article 136

None of the provisions of this Charter shall be construed as impairing the rights and obligations ofthe Member States under the Charter of the United Nations.

Attendance at meetings of the permanent organs of the Organization of American States or at theconferences and meetings provided for in the Charter, or held under the auspices of theOrganization, shall be in accordance with the multilateral character of the aforesaid organs,conferences, and meetings and shall not depend on the bilateral relations between the Governmentof any Member State and the Government of the host country.

Article 138

The Organization of American States shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity,privileges, and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of its functions and the accomplishmentof its purposes.

Article 139

The representatives of the Member States on the organs of the Organization, the personnel of theirdelegations, as well as the Secretary General and the Assistant Secretary General shall enjoy theprivileges and immunities corresponding to their positions and necessary for the independentperformance of their duties.

Article 140

The juridical status of the Specialized Organizations and the privileges and immunities that should begranted to them and to their personnel, as well as to the officials of the General Secretariat, shall bedetermined in a multilateral agreement. The foregoing shall not preclude, when it is considerednecessary, the concluding of bilateral agreements.

Article 141

Correspondence of the Organization of American States, including printed matter and parcels,bearing the frank thereof, shall be carried free of charge in the mails of the Member States.

Article 142

The Organization of American States does not allow any restriction based on race, creed, or sex, withrespect to eligibility to participate in the activities of the Organization and to hold positions therein.

Article 143

Within the provisions of this Charter, the competent organs shall endeavor to obtain greatercollaboration from countries not members of the Organization in the area of cooperation fordevelopment.

The present Charter shall remain open for signature by the American States and shall be ratified inaccordance with their respective constitutional procedures. The original instrument, the Spanish,English, Portuguese, and French texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited with theGeneral Secretariat, which shall transmit certified copies thereof to the Governments for purposes ofratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the General Secretariat, whichshall notify the signatory States of such deposit.

Article 145

The present Charter shall enter into force among the ratifying States when two thirds of the signatoryStates have deposited their ratifications. It shall enter into force with respect to the remaining Statesin the order in which they deposit their ratifications.

Article 146

The present Charter shall be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations through theGeneral Secretariat.

Article 147

Amendments to the present Charter may be adopted only at a General Assembly convened for thatpurpose. Amendments shall enter into force in accordance with the terms and the procedure setforth in Article 145.

Article 148

The present Charter shall remain in force indefinitely, but may be denounced by any Member Stateupon written notification to the General Secretariat, which shall communicate to all the others eachnotice of denunciation received. After two years from the date on which the General Secretariatreceives a notice of denunciation, the present Charter shall cease to be in force with respect to thedenouncing State, which shall cease to belong to the Organization after it has fulfilled the obligationsarising from the present Charter.

The Inter-American Committee on the Alliance for Progress shall act as the permanent executivecommittee of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council as long as the Alliance is in operation.

Article l50

Until the inter-American convention on human rights, referred to in Chapter XVI, enters into force,the present Inter-American Commission on Human Rights shall keep vigilance over the observanceof human rights.

Article l51

The Permanent Council shall not make any recommendation nor shall the General Assembly take anydecision with respect to a request for admission on the part of a political entity whose territorybecame subject, in whole or in part, prior to December 18, 1964, the date set by the First Special Inter-American Conference, to litigation or claim between an extracontinental country and one or moreMember States of the Organization, until the dispute has been ended by some peaceful procedure.This article shall remain in effect until December l0, l990.

PERMANENT MISSIONS DIRECTORY

Antigua and BarbudaArgentinaBahamasBarbadosBelizeBoliviaBrazilCanadaChileColombiaCosta RicaDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasJamaicaMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruSaint LuciaSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSurinameSt. Kitts and NevisTrinidad and TobagoUnited States of AmericaUruguayVenezuela

Discussion 18

PAN-AMERICANISM - AMERICAN STYLE

INTRODUCTION

Though ordinary people are not aware of it, there are certainly two different leadership styles ofgovernments. One is a presidential system and the other is a cabinet government. Japan and U.K. aretypical examples of cabinet government, and the United States is the most typical of the presidentialsystem. Under the cabinet style, the Prime Minister is elected among the Diet members and bearsresponsibility for the Diet government. The Prime Minister's independence and leadership areextremely low. In that sense, it is difficult to reflect the will of the people. On the other hand, underthe presidential style government, it is the nation that elects the president, and the president doesn'thave to shoulder responsibility for the Congress. Owing to this, the president is independent of theCongress can exercise much leadership. The will of the people is easily and more directly reflected.For example, the American president exercises a great power against a nation. Also, the president isa very big part of the American's heart. Don't many Americans feel keenly about it when we go toDallas, Texas. First, we visit "the sixth floor" from where J. F. Kennedy was shot. There, we know,how deep the American's were sunk in grief when he was shot. Many Americans are impressed bythe display there. Then we became familiar with the movie "Air Force One". In that movie, thepresident's part played by Harrison Ford was portrayed as eminently heroic. One of your friendscould say, "The president, say the present president Bill Clinton, is a very big part of me, whether weare for or against his policy." Who portrays the Japanese Prime Minister as a cool leader? Who iscaptivated by the Japanese Prime Minister? In this sense, the president (especially of the U.S.) is ahero of great influence, regardless of his policy. Since we are very interested in this presidentialsystem, we will to focus mainly on this.

As I've already stated above, the American president is very influential in America. What aboutabroad? When we watch news of international disputes on TV, the American President appears onthe screen so often. If we give a familiar example, we saw that the American President was the first tosettle such disputes as the Cambodian domestic war, the Gulf War, the Vietnam War, the Korean Warand so forth. Then, the question must be posed as to whether the American President exercises hispower on both Americans and other people in the world. In this research paper, I want to argue howthe American President used to and is exercising his power not only on his nation but also on peopleof other countries.

AMERICAN ISOLATIONISM

As was mentioned in the introduction, it is to be presumed that recent American Presidents showgood leadership if we look at such incidents as the Gulf War, the Vietnam War and so forth. But,America is a newly-founded country. It is hard to imagine that she had a strong national power andshowed good leadership from the very start. Then, when did she start showing her leadership? Letus think back to the old days when she did not have worldwide leadership by focusing mainly on itsforeign policy.

The center of modern international politics was Europe. Once America became independent ofEuropean countries, she tried to keep out of international relations. The Father of his Country,Washington George declared in 1796, he would not form an alliance with any other countries lestAmerica should be dragged into a war or revolution. This foreign policy combined with Nationalismand was firmly established as an isolationist policy in U.S.A.

The isolationist policy was made possible by the following 3 conditions. First, America is partitionedoff widely by the Atlantic Ocean, i.e. a geographic condition. Second, among neighboring countries,that is Latin American countries, there were no countries strong enough to threaten America. So,America did not have to increase armaments to look to her own safety. Third, by the end of the 19thcentury, America had become the biggest industrial nation as well as the biggest agricultural nation.The U.S. was rich in natural resources and furthermore there was a huge demand in the domesticmarket. So, the U.S. did not have to establish diplomatic relations in search of natural resources noroverseas markets.1 (Ariga,S. 1998)

Later in 1823, the fifth President Monroe announced the Monroe Doctrine. This doctrine set up 3fundamental rules of American foreign policy. First, the U.S. would not intervene in strife of Europe.Second, the U.S. would oppose if European countries expanded their political formation to WesternHemisphere. These are called isolationist policy. Third, America would approve the independence ofLatin American countries and try to spread democracy in this area. This was the early interventionpolicy. But, fundamentally the U.S.A. took an isolationist policy.2 (http://opinion.nucaba.ac.jp)

THE AWAKENING OF THE PAN-AMERICANISM & THE COLD WAR

However, after having experienced W.W.1. and W.W.2. America came to intervene in any disputes onearth. The 32nd President Roosevelt's idea of the postwar world implies this change. He suggestedthat America, Britain, the Soviet Union and China should corporate in constructing the world order.He also tried to spread American ideas and ideals all over the world.3 (Professor Naya, 1998) Ineconomic field, Roosevelt created American-centered free trade system in 1944. This American-centered political and economic sense is called Pan-Americanism.4 ( Asada, Masao. 1998)

In reality, cooperation of America and the Soviet Union that Roosevelt had dreamed of was notrealized, and the Cold War that divided the World into the East and West camps began instead.

The most decisive factor of the Cold War is said to have been the Truman Doctrine, 1947. This wasthe first statement written by an American President that stressed the menace of Communism.5(Truman,H.S. 1947)

At this stage, American containment policy was not realized by military means but by economicmeans.6 (Naya. 1998) The most famous application of this policy was the Marshall Plan. In theimmediate postwar period, Europe remained ravaged and thus susceptible to exploitation by internaland external communist threats. In a June 5, 1947 speech to the graduating class at HarvardUniversity, Secretary of State George C, Marshall issued a call for a comprehensive program torebuild Europe. In March 1948 Congress passed the Economic Cooperation Act and approvedfunding that would eventually rise to over 12 billion dollars for the rebuilding of Western Europe. TheMarshall Plan generated a resurgence of European industrialization and brought extensiveinvestment into the region. Soviet and East European participation was invited at first. However,because the Soviet Union refused this plan and American politicians opposed to funding recovery inCommunist nations, the Marshall Plan was applied solely to Western Europe. Thus, the breakup ofEuropean countries became clinched.7 (U.S. Information Agency. 1998)

After that, by confronting several events such as the establishment of a communist government inthe Czech Republic, the Berlin blockade, the success of an A-bomb test in the Soviet Union, theestablishment of the Republic of China and so forth, America realized the limitations of thecontainment policy by economic means, and started to use military power. In response, 12 Westerncountries formed "NATO".8 ( Ariga, 1998)

Then, the Cold War got more and more serious. But, surprisingly enough, direct battle between theU.S. and the Soviet Union never occurred, and secondary battles such as the Korean War, theVietnam War and so forth occurred instead. The reason why America got involved in the affairs ofother countries was the matter of "credibility". If the U.S. disregarded any disputes because thesewere not big concerns for America, the U.S. would lose credibility from its allied countries.9 (Naya.1998)

The Korean War is a one good example. Korea was not an important country for America. On June25, 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea with 90,000 troops equipped with Soviet weapons. Soon,Truman asked and received support from the UN and the 2nd UN meeting approved use of groundtroops because Russia had boycotted that Security Council. First, Truman's aim was to force NKtroops to withdraw to the 38th parallel. However, the local Commander MacArthur proposed his planto "compose and unite" all Korea in a great counterattack. When MacArthur crossed the 38th line intoNK, that provoked China and they sent Communist Chinese Forces. This war which ended with anarmistice in 1953 had a great meaning. It clinched the Cold War structure in Asia.10 ( the University ofSan Diego, 1998)

In the mid-1950s the U.S. and the Soviet Union which had been strongly turned against each other,started to change their attitudes especially after the top level meeting held in Geneva in 1955.Though they were still looking at their opponent with distrust, they tried to have a conference at thesame table.

When the Soviet and the U.S. were seeking for coexistence, President Kennedy started to intervenein Indonesia to prevent the Communism from being spread in this region. First of all, the U.S. was notgoing far enough to send the U.S. ground forces, because of the Korean War's nightmare. However,the President Johnson started to prepare for military intervention in real earnest. He declared thatthe U.S. would easily win this war confidently on January 1968. However, when the North Vietnamesetroop started to attack all together, the U.S. began to ask the North Vietnamese troop for a negotiatedsolution.11 (Ariga, 1998)

THE FRUSTRATION OF PAN-AMERICANISM

The failure of the intervention in the Vietnam War showed the frustration of Pan-Americanism.Facing this situation, President Nixon expressed the Nixon Doctrine. He decided to reduce US'sexcessive intervention in the world (especially in Asian counties) in order to reduce Americanresponsibility and have the countries concerned to shoulder the responsibility.12 (Nixon, 1969) Inother words, the U.S. recognized it limitation as an international power in terms of both economic andmilitary affairs.

The frustration in the economic field brought the following change. The world had been on the goldand dollar standard. However, because the U.S. had spent too much money on the Vietnam War, thegold possessed by America kept flowing into other countries. So, America had no choice but tochange the fixed exchange rate system into the floating one.13 (Ariga, 1998)

Another outstanding event that occurred while Nixon was in office was the "Watergate" scandal,stemming from a break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee during the 1972campaign. Nixon denied any personal involvement, but the courts forced him to yield tape recordingsthat indicated that he had, in fact, tried to avert the investigation. Faced with what seemed almostcertain impeachment, Nixon announced on August 8, 1974, that he would resign the next day to begin"that process of healing which is so desperately needed in America."14 (Malcolm Farnsworth, 1998)

The "Watergate" scandal occurred when the abuse of the presidential power had reached its peak.After W.W.2 as American power became bigger and bigger, the presidential power became so fat thatCongress couldn't constrain his power anymore. The President even dispatched troops during theKorean War, the Vietnam War and so forth, without obtaining Congress approval. Against thissituation, a new law under which the President could commit troops 1) when Congress declared War,2) when legally approved 3) when attacked by other countries, was made.15 (Ariga, 1998)

Under the Reagan administration, people demanded for the revival of the strong U.S. In reality,however, during the 8 years of his administration, the U.S. fell into the worst debtor nation.16 ( Ariga,1998)

THE END OF THE COLD WAR

Then, George Bush who had been Vice President under the Reagan administration, became the 41stPresident in 1988. While he was in office, summit meetings between the U.S. and the Soviet Unionwere held one after another. Finally, the Cold War came to an end when START (Strategic ArmsReduction Talks) was signed. Thereafter, the U.S. gained the single hegemony.17 ( Ariga, 1998)

CONCLUSION

I would like to end by mentioning how the U.S. gained the hegemony of the world.

First of all, I would like to say something about the American concept of the leader country.Americans conceptualize the leader country as a country that has the ability to put the world in order,in terms of both military affairs and economy.

At the end of W.W.2, American industrial output constituted half the world industrial output, and theU.S. possessed 70 percent of the gold in the world. In that dominant situation, the U.S. created suchregimes as the free trade system, the gold standard, the fixed exchange rate system and so forth.The U.S. herself took initiative in those regimes. Because the U.S. took the initiative in the worldeconomy, she donated her own money to the world. (E.g., the Marshall Plan mentioned in theprevious part.) In this way, the U.S. was aware of herself being a leader country in terms of economy.And indeed, she had held the economic hegemony until the 1970s.

In terms of military affairs, the U.S. had always been the leader of the Western Countries andintervened in many disputes during the Cold War. Then, when the rival Soviet Union disappeared, theU.S. became the dominant force in the military hegemony.

The period when the U.S. held supremacy in both economic and military affairs came to an endduring the 1970s. As was mentioned in the previous section, when the fixed exchange rate systemchanged to the floating one, the U.S. economic power collapsed as the value of the dollar fell.Furthermore, while the U.S. was spending her own money on creating regimes as written above,military buildup and so on, other countries (including Japan) achieved remarkable economic growth.So, it began to be doubted if the U.S. was still the dominant leader.

Now, in terms of military affairs, the U.S. is still the dominant leader. Though in the economic field, aswas mentioned above, the power of the U.S. is declining, there are no alternative leader countries.So, it is certain that the Hegemony of the U.S. is still lasting, and will last for the near future.18(Kishikawa, 1998)

I would like to conclude with a look at the relationship between this "dominant leader" and "thepresidential style" is.

One of the most effective factors of the American foreign policy is the vast authority of the AmericanPresidents. The prerogatives of the President's authority toward the other countries are quite simple.

1, The president can conclude any treaties with consent of the Upper House.2, The president has the power to appoint and dismiss an ambassador, a minister, and a consul.3, The president is the commander of the U.S. force.

In spite of these succinct prerogatives, the presidents were endowed with absolute authority sincethe founding of the country. The following three reasons might help to understand this full authority.

First, the right to conclude treaties means that the President can interpret and enforce or abrogatetreaties. Only the President can ratify treaties. So, it is up to President whether the U.S. adoptstreaties or not.

Second, the American President has a lot of information and expert knowledge of external issues.This is because, the American President posses the White House Secretariat, National SecurityCouncil, National Economic Conference, the State Department, the Department of Defense and soforth. This systematic organization at whose summit the President is situated is profitable for thePresident.

Third, as was mentioned before, the President take is the supreme commander of the army. Sincethe 20th century, their power has greatly increased. U.S. Presidents have intervened in the KoreanWar and the Vietnam War without the consent of the Congress and have made declarations of wars.This kind of act became regarded as an abuse of the presidential power after the Watergate Scandaland was constrained to some extent. However, the Presidents still have huge influence on U.S. army.19 ( Ariga, 1998)

Of course there are some with about the American Presidential system. (E.g. the abuse of thepower). However this system has contributed a lot for the U.S. to become a leader country. It is truethat the U.S. is still the leader country in the world. And American Presidents will continue to have abig influence not only on Americans but the people in the world until other alternative leadercountries would appear.

Some people say that events in Central America will not impact on American long-range vital interests.

Let's analyze -- Is it not a vital interest for the United States to secure the Panama Canal from possiblemilitary or terrorist attack so as to guarantee the safe transit of international shipping through thecanal so as not to hinder the movement of world commerce? Canals, after all, tend to restrict themaneuverability of ships that enter, and thus leave them highly vulnerable to attack if not protectedby some other defensive system.

The truth being, the U.S. Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Enterprise put itself at great risk when itdashed through the Suez Canal from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea with purpose to quicklyrelieve the U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Coral Sea operating with the Sixth Fleet somewhere off thecoast of Libya. Historically, the Suez Canal having been closed to all international shipping for manyyears as a result of Israeli attacks on Egyptian shipping during the famous Arab-Israeli struggleknown as the Six Day War. And historically, this being the first time the Enterprise or any U.S. warshipwas granted open approval of the Mubarak government to travel through the Canal. Previoustransits , indeed, having the approval of the Mubarak government, but granted only under the coverof darkness.

Thus we maintain, as long as our merchant and military shipping find it economically and logicallyadvantageous to transit from the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean via the Panama Canal or viceversa , this vital interest will still exist when sovereignty over the canal is completely turned over toPanama in 1999. And, because of this vital interest, it is the best interest of the United States andworld commerce that military bases of nations potentially hostile to the security of the canal bediscouraged.

(Editor's Note-It being recognized that some U.S. Naval Vessels and some Super Tanker Vessels aretoo big to make transit of the Panama Canal, the alternate being a longer trip through the treacherousStraits of Magellan at the tip of South America Or the transit of goods through the establishment ofintermodal railroad lines in the United States, Canada or Central America a manifestation of the 1980'sand 90's

In theory, the American government need not care about who governs Nicaragua. After all, eachnation should have the right to select and determine its own leadership without the interference ofoutside parties especially if that nation is not interfering with the internal affairs of another nation.

But realistically, a nation gives up some "sovereignty" and allows a certain measure of internationalconcern and pressure if it becomes party to and abides by the provisions of international treaties orcompacts. Examples being the United Nations Charter, Helsinki Accords on Human Rights and thelong-standing Genocide Treaty so recently approved by the United States Senate.

Then too, our concern must be that no alien military bases be established in Nicaragua or any LatinAmerican nation that would pose a military or terrorist threat to the Panama Canal and the security ofour southern borders.

Important, the United States should make it clear to the de facto authorities in Nicaragua and Cubathat we mean their people no harm. Ideally, the Sandinistas and Fidel Castro would abandon theirpresent course of action and ask all non-hemispheric forces to leave their territorial jurisdictions andrefrain from acts of filibustering in other hemispheric countries.

But unfortunately we live in a world of other realities. The fixed reality being that the above scenariois a mind image not likely to be acted upon by those obdurate in heart.

Editor's Note - Since the writing of this essay the Sandinistas have lost power in Nicaragua althoughDan Ortega has gained office again under the title of a different party and Castro is still impacted bythe U.S. and Hemispheric Policy of Containment.

Discussion 19

Is Latin American Doomed to Failure? by Peter Hakim

This abstract is adapted from an article appearing in the Winter 1999-2000 issue of FOREIGN POLICYmagazine.

In Peru, an autocratic president has curbed the power of the congress and the courts and muffledthe press. Voters in Venezuela last year elected the leader of a failed military coup d'état as presidentand now overwhelmingly support his campaign to radically transform the nation's politicalinstitutions. Guerrillas in Colombia have free run of about half the country. Brazil was forced todevalue its currency in January 1999, provoking an open rift with Argentina and threatening thesurvival of MERCOSUR, Latin America's most successful trade pact. In the region's worstperformance in more than a decade, nearly every major Latin American economy has fallen into adeep slump this year.

Throughout the early 1990s, expectations were high that Latin America had transcended its legacy ofrepressive military regimes, Cuban style revolutionaries, and boom-and-bust economies that had sobadly hobbled the region for most of its history. Sustained economic growth, social progress, decentgovernment, and genuine hemispheric partnerships all seemed within reach. Yet now, as the decadecomes to a close, these expectations are far from fulfilled. Many people are asking whether they everwill be.

The global economic turmoil of the past two years has revealed the vulnerability of Latin America'seconomies and cast into doubt whether the region can soon achieve rapid, long-term growth. True,Latin America's dramatic economic restructuring and policy reforms have delivered sharply lowerinflation, increased exports, and expanded access to international capital. But bottom-line results arestill elusive. For the entire decade, 1990 to 1999, the region's economies will have grown, onaverage, at a rate of less than 3 percent a year. That is better than the 1.9 percent growth of the1980s, but is less than one half of Latin America's 6 percent average in the 1960s and 1970s, andsubstantially below the 3.4 percent the World Bank estimates is necessary to reduce poverty. It is farshort of what the region's economic reforms were supposed to deliver.

At the same time, inequalities of income and wealth are worsening almost everywhere. Latin Americasuffers the worst income disparities of any region in the world (with sub-Saharan Africa running aclose second).

But it is not only economic hardship that is undermining democracy's credibility. Few of LatinAmerica's democratic governments are managing to do a very good job of actually governing. A largeshare of Latin America's population has little or no access to minimal government services. Only 1 of3 Latin American children attends secondary school, compared with over 4 of 5 in Southeast Asia, andmost drop out before graduating. On average, Latin American workers have two years less schoolingthan workers in identical jobs in other countries with similar income levels.

Compounding these problems, Latin America's basic democratic institutions-judicial systems,legislatures, political parties, even the presidency are weak and discredited in most countries.Sometimes, they barely work at all. By comparison, freedom of the press has been a bright spot, butthe media still face sharp restrictions in a number of countries, including Argentina, Chile, Mexico,and Peru.

Nevertheless, debates over whether Latin America's glass is half empty or half full miss the point.Latin America is neither going to leapfrog to full-fledged democracy and prosperity overnight, norspiral into anarchy. The region is in trouble. But some countries will start to make slow and steadygains in the next decade.

Chile has set the standard. In the last 10 years, it has achieved steady growth averaging above 6percent a year, a sharp and visible reduction in poverty (although not inequality), and continuingimprovements in government services.

Argentina has made impressive economic and political advances since democratic rule was restoredin 1983 and is now well situated probably better than any other Latin American country to accelerateits progress on both fronts.

Uruguay and Costa Rica, which along with Chile have the strongest democratic heritage in LatinAmerica, will almost surely sustain the vitality of their democratic institutions and maintain the qualityof their public services. The future of their economies is harder to predict. Historically, the economicperformance of both countries has been uneven, and both are heavily dependent on their largerneighbors.

Mexico shows good prospects of significant economic success, particularly if the U.S. economyremains strong. The quality of its politics, however, will be hampered by its short experience withdemocracy, continuing deep political divisions, and extensive drug problems, criminal violence, andcorruption.

Among the region's smaller countries, El Salvador, Panama, and the Dominican Republic havedemonstrated recent economic vitality. Brazil, which accounts for nearly one third of Latin America'spopulation and economic activity, will heavily influence the region's overall economic performance inthe coming years. It is the wild card.

Brazil's growth throughout the 1990s has been sluggish and will average less than 2.5 percent a yearfor the decade. Nevertheless, the country succeeded far beyond anyone's expectations in squeezinginflation out of its economy and quickly recuperating from its recent currency crisis.

Nowhere in Latin America today is democratic rule threatened by military takeover, as it has beenthrough most of the region's history. Moreover, governments across the region have resisted thepopulist temptations that have typically plunged Latin America's economies into crisis. They are tryingto maintain fiscal discipline by controlling spending and collecting more taxes. Nowhere is there anyserious discussion of renationalizing privatized enterprises, reimposing high tariff barriers, orshutting the door on foreign investment. Even Venezuela's President Chavez, who has denounced"savage market capitalism" and promised to redistribute his country's wealth, has not strayed frommarket orthodoxy.

Is Latin America doomed to failure? Surely not. Even though Latin America has fallen short ofexpectations, most of the region will avoid outright disaster. Neither true military dictatorships norpopulist economic strategies are likely to re-emerge, at least not any time soon. Most of the region'spolitical leaders and financial managers are betting on democratic politics and market economics,and struggling to make them work.

Scott Mainwaring's "The Surprising Resilience of Elected Governments" (Journal of Democracy, July1999)

Ken Maxwell's "The Two Brazils" (Wilson Quarterly, Winter 1999)

Michael Shifter's "Tensions and Trade-Offs in Latin America" (Journal of Democracy, April 1997)

Shifter's "Colombia on the Brink" (Foreign Affairs, July/August 1999)

John Williamson, ed., Latin American Adjustment: How much has happened? (Washington: Institutefor International Economics, 1990)

The best cross-country surveys of public opinion in Latin America are presented in the annualpublication, Latinobarómetro, published by PROMPERU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ABOUT THE AUTHORPeter Hakim is president of the Inter-American Dialogue. This abstract is adapted from an articleappearing in the Winter 1999-2000 issue of FOREIGN POLICY magazine.

In the teeming river of dictators that runs through Latin American history, never has one soinscrutable surfaced as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. Defining him through a series of negations isperhaps more appropriate than describing his elusive personality.

Is he a dictator? Perhaps the term depicts what Chávez says better than what he does. Yet even hisdeeds suggest that he interprets democracy differently than most people. Unlike Juan Perón orAugusto Pinochet, he has not choked off freedom of expression or of the press, but neither has heeliminated the fear that these liberties may end with the first bout of government insecurity. Thereare no political prisoners as in Cuba, but dozens of judges have been arbitrarily removed forpresumed corruption. Emphasizing the "patriotic and voluntary" nature of its exertions, the armybuilds hospitals, repairs bridges, and purchases food in the countryside to sell at cost in publicmarkets. Who could oppose that? "With Venezuela's terrible social drama," Chávez says, "we cannotafford the luxury of having 100,000 men in the barracks, eating and standing guard while peoplestarve on street corners." He may be right. But he used to be just a cashiered lieutenant colonel, andresentment may lurk among Venezuela's generals. They are, however, very aware of his popularitywith the troops, and they know that a general without full control of his troops is somewhat irrelevant.

Neither is Chávez a radical leftist seeking to overturn property laws. Yet in campaign speeches hedefended the right of the needy to occupy the weekend homes of modest middle-class families, whilehis letter to Carlos the Jackal (a Venezuelan terrorist jailed in Paris) and admiring words about FidelCastro smack of the rhetoric of the old left. And while he preaches friendship with the United States,his foreign affairs minister wastes no opportunity to exhibit his long-held anti-Americanism.

When I sat down for a two-hour conversation with Chávez in the Palacio de Miraflores in Caracas, Iexpected to confront a terrible despot. But he radiates the opposite image: that of a simple countryboy, open to criticism and willing to admit mistakes. His gestures are seductive. He refers to visitorsby their first names, occasionally calling them "brother," inviting them to join his travels, hiscrusades against poverty in Venezuela's interior, his Sunday morning call-in radio show.

When I listened to the tapes of our conversation, however, I learned how deceiving first impressionscan be. Behind his affable demeanor, Chávez is wed to a few rigid and recurring ideas. Initially, heseems to agree with the arguments offered to him, but later, when the subject re-emerges, hereverts to prior formulations, as though he had memorized a single speech from which he wasunwilling or unable to depart. Is this insecurity or fanaticism? It's difficult to know. For Chávez thereis always a single truth, with no shades of gray. Although his personality has much in common withthose of earlier Latin American dictators, Chávez understands that authoritarianism faces stifferresistance now. Will he be more astute than predecessors such as Perón, Rafael Trujillo, orVenezuela's Marcos Pérez Jiménez, who he personally invited to his presidential inauguration?

Since his adolescence, the president has felt predestined to fulfill the legacy that Simón Bolívar leftunfinished 170 years ago. He can recite the Liberator's writings and surrounds himself with portraitsand symbols commemorating his hero. But unlike Bolívar, whose political plans were alwayspainstakingly designed, Chávez is not always predictable. His unwillingness to clarify how much heshares of his radical allies' anachronistic economic thinking has scared foreign investors andwhatever is left of a once strong business community.

Because of his inexperience and provincial worldview, Chávez appears not to understand thatcomplex interests swirling outside Venezuela could cause his projects to fail. He seems naive andirresponsible. When I asked if he feared dashing the hopes he had planted in so many people andspeculated that such disenchantment could lead to chaos, he looked at me as though the idea hadnever crossed his mind. "God is with us," he said.

During the 1970s and even later, Latin America's authoritarian leaders believed they were foreveraltering their countries' political traditions. Pinochet, Jorge Rafael Videla, and Jean-Claude Duvalierdid so, at least partially. After their tenures, Chile, Argentina, and Haiti were never the same. Chávezis attempting to shake the foundations of Venezuelan democracy and replace them with newinstitutions displaying doubtful democratic affinities, though anchored in popular support. Is hecreating a new model for authoritarianism that could spread throughout the Americas? Or is he asocial avenger who will come to understand that without playing by the new rules of a globalizedworld-markets and democracy-he is doomed to fail? Although Chávez remains an enigma, it seemslikely that, rather than remaking history, he will be remade by it.

Tomás Eloy Martínez, director of the Latin American Studies Program at Rutgers University, is theauthor of many works on Peronism. His latest novel is Santa Evita (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996).